in the supreme court of florida...standard diploma graduation rate . dropout rate . postschool...

17

12

10

2

State NCLB School Accountability Report

"Pre-K Can Work"

Students With Disabilities Enrollment, 6-21, 2007-2008

SEA 2008 Profile

APPENDIX

COMMENTS ON SUBCHAPTER 6-27 EDUCATION

CASE NO. SC08-1981 THE FLORIDA BAR RE PETITION TO AMEND RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR SUBCHAPTERS 6-27 EDUCATION AND 6-28 ADOPTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

A-1

Survey of parent perceptions Data presented as an indicator of parent involvement (Section Four)

Evaluations completed within 60 days Student membership by race/ethnicity Risk ratios of racial/ethnic groups being identified as disabled

Data presented as indicators of prevalence (Section Three)

Students with disabilities ages 6-21 by placement setting Children with disabilities ages 3-5 by placement setting Part C to Part B transition Students with disabilities suspended/expelled for more than 10 days in a school year

Data presented as indicators of educational environment (Section Two)

Note: FCAT participation and performance data formerly included are published separately in the fall of each year.

NCLB graduation rate Standard diploma graduation rate Dropout rate Postschool outcome data

Data presented as indicators of educational benefit (Section One)

Data in the SEA profile are presented for the state, and where appropriate and available, comparative data for general education students are included. Indicators in bold are part of the State Performance Plan.

The SEA profile, along with similar district profiles, is intended to provide districts with a tool for use in planning for systemic improvement in exceptional education programs. The profile contains a series of data indicators that describe measures of educational benefit, educational environment, prevalence, parent involvement and provides information about state level targets in Florida's State Performance Plan. Required by IDEA 2004, the State Performance Plan (2005-10) is a six-year plan that establishes annual benchmarks and targets for 20 indicators. Annual Performance Reports are submitted to report progress in these performance areas, and the process requires annual public reporting for the state and each local education agency.

14% PERCENT DISABLED: 381,561

2,652,684

NUMBER DISABLED:

PK-12 POPULATION:

INTRODUCTION

DR. ERIC J. SMITH COMMISSIONER

2008 SEA PROFILE

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BUREAU OF EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATION AND STUDENT SERVICES

A-2

SEA Profile, Page 2

The number of standard diploma graduates divided by the number of students with disabilities who completed their education (received either a standard diploma, GED, special diploma, certificate of completion or special certificate of completion) or dropped out. This graduation rate is calculated based on the total number of students with disabilities who exited school in a given year, rather than using the four-year cohort model described in the NCLB graduation rate. The data are reported for 2005-06 and 2006-07.

STANDARD DIPLOMA GRADUATION RATE:

2005-06 68%

All Students 2004-05

69% 2003-04

69%

Students with Disabilities 2005-06

37% 2004-05

37% 2003-04

37%

The number of first-time ninth graders from four years ago, plus incoming transfer students on the same schedule to graduate, minus students from this population who transferred out or left to enroll in a private school, home education, or adult education, divided into the number of standard diploma graduates from the same group. The resulting percentages are reported for the three-year period from 2003-04 through 2005-06 for students with disabilities and all students. The NCLB graduation rate data lag one year behind other graduation data presented in this profile.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) GRADUATION RATE:

Educational benefit refers to the extent to which children benefit from their educational experience. Progression through and completion of school are dimensions of educational benefits as are postschool outcomes. This section of the profile provides data on indicators of school completion and postschool outcomes.

SECTION ONE: EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

The data contained in this profile were obtained from data submitted electronically by districts through the Department of Education Information Database in surveys 2 and 5, through district survey and parent survey submissions, through the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP), and through the Department of Health Early Steps program.

DATA SOURCES

Summary information on selected state performance plan indicators State level targets

Selected State Performance Plan indicators (Section Five)

A-3 SEA PROFILE 2008

SEA Profile,

The number of students with disabilities ages 3-5 attending a regular early childhood program or kindergarten at least 80% of the time, between 40% and 79% of the time, and less than 40% of the time, children attending a special education program at a regular school campus or community-based setting, and children in other environments, divided by the total number of students with disabilities ages 3-5 reported in October (survey 2). Students attending a regular early childhood program or kindergarten are those who spend any time in a program that includes at least 50% nondisabled children. Students attending a special education program are those who are served in programs that include less than 50% nondisabled children on a regular school campus or community-based setting. Students in other environments include those served at separate schools, residential facilities, at home, or at a service provider location. Because the reporting categories changed as of the 2006-07 school year, the resulting percentages are reported only for 2006-07 and 2007-08.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SETTINGS, AGES 3-5:

Other Separate Environment 2007-08

3% 2006-07

2% 2005-06

3%

2005-06 Resource Room

2007-08 16%

2006-07 18% 19%

Separate Class 2005-06

22% 2007-08

18% 2006-07

22%

2007-08 62%

Regular Class 2006-07

58% 2005-06

55%

The number of students with disabilities ages 6-21 in regular class, resource room, separate class, and other separate environment, divided by the total number of students with disabilities ages 6-21 reported in December (survey 9) for 2005-06 and October (survey 2) for 2006-07 and 2007-08. Regular class includes students who spend 80% or more of their school week with nondisabled peers. Resource room includes students spending between 40% and 80% of their school week with nondisabled peers. Separate class includes students spending less than 40% of their week with nondisabled peers. Other separate environment includes students served in public or private separate schools, residential placements or hospital/homebound placements. The resulting percentages are reported for the three years from 2005-06 through 2007-08. Beginning with 2006-07, students served in corrections facilities and students enrolled by their parents in private schools who are receiving special education and/or related services from the LEA are not included in this calculation.

REGULAR CLASS, RESOURCE ROOM, SEPARATE CLASS PLACEMENT, AND OTHER SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTS, AGES 6-21:

Indicators related to educational environment address the extent to which students with disabilities receive special education with their nondisabled peers, timely transition from Part C programs to Part B programs, and risk ratios of out-of-school suspensions/expulsions for students with disabilities when compared to nondisabled peers.

SECTION TWO: EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT


SEA Profile, Page 3

Employed/Cont. Ed. 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

55% 57% 56%

Students with Disabilities Cont. Ed.

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 19% 20% 19%

Employed 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

48% 49% 48%

The Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) is an interagency data collection system that obtains follow-up data on former students. The most recent FETPIP data available reports on students who exited Florida public schools during the 2005-06 school year. The table below displays percentage of students with disabilities exiting school for the three-year period from 2003-04 through 2005-06 who were found employed between October and December following their exit or in continuing education (enrolled for the fall or preliminary winter/spring semester following their exit). Finally, an unduplicated percentage of students who are found employed and/or continuing education is included. In this case, a student who is found both employed and in continuing education is counted only once.

POSTSCHOOL OUTCOME DATA:

2006-07 5%

2004-05 5%

2006-07 8%

2004-05 7%

SLD 2005-06

6%

2006-07 3%

All Students 2005-06

3% 2004-05

3%

EBD 2005-06

8%


5% 2005-06

6% 2004-05

5%

The number of students grades 9-12 for whom a dropout withdrawal reason (DNE, W05, W11, W13- W23) was reported, divided by the total enrollment of grades 9-12 students and students who did not enter school as expected (DNEs) as reported at the end of the school year (survey 5). The resulting percentages are reported for students with disabilities, all students, students identified as emotionally/behaviorally disabled (EBD), and students identified as specific learning disabled (SLD) for the years 2004-05 through 2006-07.

DROPOUT RATE:

40% 39%

Standard Diploma Graduation Rate Students with Disabilities

2006-07 2005-06

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION A-5

SEA Profile, Page 5

2006-07 1.6

Risk Ratio 2005-06

1.8 2004-05

1.9

Suspended/Expelled For Greater than 10 Days Nondisabled Students

2006-07 <1%

2005-06 <1%

2004-05 1%


1% 2005-06

2% 2004-05

2%

The resulting rates and risk ratios are reported for students with disabilities and nondisabled students for three years from 2004-05 through 2006-07.

Discipline rates are calculated by dividing the number of students who received out-of-school suspensions or expulsions that total more than 10 days by total-year enrollment as reported at the end of the school year (survey 5). Discipline rates are calculated for both students with disabilities and nondisabled students. Discipline risk ratios are calculated by dividing the discipline rate of students with disabilities by the discipline rate of nondisabled students. Risk ratios indicate the risk that students with disabilities will be suspended/expelled for greater than 10 days compared to nondisabled students. A risk ratio of 1.0 indicates that students with disabilities and nondisabled students are equally likely to be suspended/expelled.

DISCIPLINE RATES AND RISK RATIOS:

Found Eligible for Part B by 3rd Birthday 2006-07

69% 2005-06

32%

The resulting percentages are reported for students for 2005-06 and 2006-07.

The number of children referred for eligibility determination by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays, divided by the number of children served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination (not including children determined to be ineligible for Part B prior to age 3 or children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services).

PART C TO PART B TRANSITION

Other environment

2007-08 10%

2006-07 4%

Special education

program or kindergarten on regular campus

2007-08 33%

2006-07 15%

Regular early childhood program or

kindergarten < 40%

2007-08 20%

2006-07 39%


kindergarten 40%-79%

2007-08 3%

2006-07 3%


kindergarten ≥ 80%

2007-08 34%

2006-07 39%


SEA Profile, Page 6

33% 48% 16% <1% <1% 2%

EMH 44% 39% 13% <1% <1% 3%

EBD 47% 24% 25% <1% <1% 3%

SLD 46% 23% 25% 2%

<1% 4%

All Students White Black

Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

Am Ind/Alaskan Native Multiracial

Racial/ethnic data for all students as well as students with a primary disability of SLD, EBD, and mentally handicapped (MH) are presented as reported in October 2007 (survey 2).

SELECTED DISABILITIES BY RACIAL/ETHNIC CATEGORY:

White Black

Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

Am Ind/Alaskan Native Multiracial

47% 26% 22% 1%

<1% 3%

46% 23% 25% 2%

<1% 4%

State Students

with Disabilities All Students

The table below shows the statewide racial/ethnic distribution for all PK-12 students and all students with disabilities as reported in October 2007 (survey 2). Statewide, there is a larger percentage of black students in the disabled population than in the total PK-12 population (26% vs. 23%).

STUDENT MEMBERSHIP BY RACIAL/ETHNIC CATEGORY:

2006-07 93%

2005-06 91%

The number of students with parental consent to evaluate who were evaluated within 60 days of referral, divided by the total number of students with parental consent to evaluate in a given school year as reported via school district survey. The data are reported for 2005-06 and 2006-07.

EVALUATION WITHIN 60 DAYS

Indicators relative to the prevalence of students with disabilities include the percentage of students evaluated within 60 days, student membership by racial/ethnic category, and risk ratios for identification of students with disabilities by racial/ethnic category.

SECTION THREE: PREVALENCE



RISK RATIOS FOR STUDENTS PLACED IN EXCEPTIONAL EDUCATION

The risk that students of a given race will be newly identified as a student with a disability or a student in selected disability categories when compared to students of all other races. A risk ratio of 1.0 indicates the students of a given race are equally likely as all other races combined to be identified as disabled. A risk ratio of 0.00 indicates that either the race of interest or the sum of all other races is equal to zero. In calculating risk ratios, students reported as multiracial are prorated across other racial/ethnic categories. The data are presented for all students with a disability, students who are identified as MH, EBD, or SLD, and students who are identified as having autism spectrum disorder (ASD), speech or language impairments (SI-LI), other health impaired (OHI), or homebound or hospitalized (HH). The data are presented as reported in October 2007 (survey 2).

MH EBD ASD White 0.61 0.91 1.16 Black 2.50 2.16 0.74

Hispanic 0.67 0.46 1.05 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.49 0.09 1.23

Am Ind/Alaskan Native 0.71 0.92 0.84

SI-LI OHI-HH SLD All Disabled White 1.33 1.59 1.03 1.06 Black 1.00 0.78 1.03 1.18

Hispanic 0.69 0.73 1.03 0.84 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.75 0.31 0.29 0.46

Am Ind/Alaskan Native 0.99 1.05 0.29 0.95

SECTION FOUR: PARENT INVOLVEMENT

PARENT SURVEY

Response rates refer to the number of parents of children with disabilities responding to a parent survey, divided by the number of surveys sent. The parent involvement rate is the number of parents reporting that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities, divided by the total number of responding parents. These data are reported for parents of preschool children with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities in grades K-12 for 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Preschool Grades K-12 Parent Parent Parent

Involvement Rate

Parent Response Involvement Response Involvement Response Involvement Response

Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07

15% 40% 15% 43% 10% 27% 8% 29%

SEA Profile, Page 7

SEA Profile, Page 8

*Indicator 20 is calculated based on timely submission of data for Indicator 11 and Indicator 12.

100% of state reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

N

N

100.0%

55.2%

Timely and accurately reported data*

Postschool outcomes

20

14

N 62.9%

68.5%

93.1%

N

N

Y

Y

0.0%

0.0%

Y 31.9%

1.8%

21.7%

58.5%

56.5% of youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school are found in employment and/or continuing education within one year of leaving high school.

95% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten will participate in statewide assessment. 33% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in reading. 35% of students with disabilities in grades three through ten will demonstrate proficiency in math. The percent of districts with a significant discrepancy (a risk ratio of 3.0 or higher) will decrease by 4.5% to 11.9%. Districts with risk ratios of less than three will continue to maintain or decrease those ratios. Increase the percentage of students with IEPs age 6 to 21 years removed from regular class placement for less than 21% of the day to 54.8%. Decrease the percentage of student with IEPs age 6-21 years removed from regular class placement for greater than 60% of the day to 23.3%. Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs age 6 to 21 years served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements to 1.8%. 31% of responding parents report that schools facilitate parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. This percentage represents a combination of preschool and K-12 results. In 0% of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, the disproportionality can be attributed to inappropriate identification. In 0% of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, the disproportionality can be attributed to inappropriate identification. 100% of students referred, with parental consent, for evaluation are evaluated within 60 school days of which the student is in attendance. 100% of children served and referred by part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthday. 100% of youth with disabilities 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 post- secondary goals.

Transition IEP components 13

Part C children eligible for Part B who have IEPs developed and implemented by their third birthday

Evaluation within 60 Days

Disproportionality in Specific Disability Categories

Disproportionality in Special Education

12

11

10

9

Parent involvement 8

FAPE in the LRE, children ages 6-21 5

Rates of suspension and expulsion 4

Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments

3

26% of districts will meet AYP targets in math.

31% of school districts will meet AYP targets in reading.

The dropout rate for students with disabilities will decrease to 4.25%.

1.6

32%

30%

97%

N

N

5.4%

39.9%

Dropout rate

Graduation rate

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

Target Met SEA Data 2006-07 State-Level Target The percentage of students graduating with a standard diploma will increase to 39.8%.

2

1

Indicator

The following table includes selected state performance plan indicators, the state targets for 2006-07 for these indicators, state data, and whether or not the state met the target. State targets are presented in bold.

SECTION FIVE: SELECTED STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN INDICATORS


Figure 2 displays child count data reported over the last five years. Students identified as SLD have consistently represented the largest portion of the disabled population, followed by students identified as speech or language impaired. Over the five-year period, there has been a decline in the number of students identified as SLD, EBD, and MH. The "other" category has shown steady growth due to growth in autism spectrum disorders and other health impaired. The number of students identified as S/L, which has been growing, declined in the 2007-08 school year. The total disabled population declined in both 2006-07 and 2007-08.

•

•

Longitudinal Trends

Source: Survey 2, October 2007

22% 78,806 SI/LI

9% 33,554

MH

48% 172,077

SLD

9% 31,548 EBD 12%

42,288 Other

Figure 1: IDEA Child Count Ages 6-21

In October 2007, there were 358,273 students ages 6-21 served under IDEA, Part B representing approximately 14% of the total public school membership. Figure 1 displays the number of students with disabilities reported by Florida in the 2007-08 school year. Forty- eight percent of the students with disabilities were identified as specific learning disabled (SLD) 22% were identified as speech or language impaired (SI/LI), 9% were identified as mentally handicapped (MH), 9% were identified as emotional/behavioral disabled (EBD), and 12% were in other categories.

•

•

2007-08 Enrollment

As required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Florida Department of Education reports annually to the federal government the number of students with disabilities served in Florida school districts. Since 2006-07, the data are reported as of October (survey 2). Students identified as specific learning disabled (SLD), speech or language impaired (S/L), educable, trainable, and profoundly mentally handicapped (MH), and emotional/behavioral disabled (EBD) represent the majority of students served under IDEA. For the purposes of this brief, Florida students identified as autism spectrum disordered, traumatic brain injured, deaf or hard of hearing, visually impaired, orthopedically impaired, dual sensory impaired, hospital/homebound, or other health impaired are included in the "other" category.

•

•

•

Background

Students with Disabilities Enrollment, Ages 6-21, 2007-08

Florida Department of Education Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

A - 10

Perc

entC

hang

e

MH S/L EBD SLD Total

2006-07 to 2007-08 2005-06 to 2006-07 2004-05 to 2005-06 2003-04 to 2004-05 2002-03 to 2003-04 -6%

-5.2% -5%

-5.0%

-2.7%

-3.3%

-3.4% -2.9%

-3.6%

-3.8%

-4%

-2.9% -3%

-2.0%

-2% -1.7%

-1.1% -0.9% -1.4% -1%

0.0%

-0.1%

-0.7%

0.8% 1.0%

1%

1.8% 2%

0% 0.2%

1.5% 0.7%

1.8% 1.7%

3%

Figure 3: Percentage of Change in Child Count 2002-03 through 2007-08

Figure 3 displays the percent change in the child count beginning with the 2003-04 school year through 2007-08 for each of the four major disability categories and for all disabilities ages 6-21 (Total). In 2007-08, all of the major disability categories as well as the total disabled population ages 6-21 declined. The rate of growth in the total disabled population ages 6-21 in Florida has decreased since 2003-04 when the growth rate was 1.7% over 2002-03. The total disabled population ages 6-21 declined 1.7% for 2007-08 as compared to 2006-07.

•

•

2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 2004-05 2003-04

33,554 35,323 36,558 37,908 39,030 MH

78,806 79,695 78,307 77,694 76,564 SI/LI

31,548 33,295 34,418 35,774 36,829 EBD

172,077 176,939 178,488 179,772 179,453 SLD

42,288 39,393 36,795 33,709 30,624 Other

358,273 364,566 364,857 362,500 356,496

Figure 2: Longitudinal Analysis of IDEA Child Count 2003-04 through 2007-08

A - 11

elementary school reading tests, typically given in third or fourth grade. have yet to demonstrate that the academic gains from pre-K show up later in the form of improved scores on states' early national norms in every important measure of cognitive ability. The most rigorous studies of state programs likewise academic success, including oral comprehension, vocabulary, and math. Both groups remained on average far below program. Children in Head Start did no better than the control group on assessments of the skills that best predict the progress of about 5,000 three- and four-year-olds, all from poor families, some enrolled and some not enrolled in the home or go to child care. A large-scale study of Head Start by the Department of Health and Human Services compared them show only modest gains in academic or social skills—and none that endure for long—compared with peers who stay investments so far. Well-designed evaluations of Head Start and state-run programs have found that children attending The strongest case against spending even more public money on preschool is the disappointing return on such

in pre-K by the states grew from $970 million in 1992 to $3.72 billion, or about $3,642 per child enrolled, in 2007. Oklahoma, now offer pre-K to all children. Others, like Texas, target assistance to low-income families. Total investment The states, for their part, have moved into preschool primarily via the public schools. Some states, like Georgia and

employ a staff of 220,000 and enroll roughly 1 million children, with many more on waiting lists. education services year-round for poor children up to five years old and their families as well. Head Start centers today Even Start and Early Head Start) gives grants to public, private, and nonprofit agencies to provide nutrition, health, and Johnson's Great Society programs, Head Start has grown into a $7 billion per year entitlement that (with its offshoots, fall of 1965. These kids, it was hoped, would benefit from an educational "head start." One of the most enduring of Johnson administration to create an eight-week summer session for poor children set to enter elementary school in the

Unlike K-12 education, pre-K and its forerunner, nursery school, arose in the early twentieth century with little help or hindrance from government. Concern about the lagging academic achievement of the poor, however, prompted the

pedagogical approaches proven to work (in pre-K and beyond), and held programs accountable for results. Congress would do more good with less money if it focused its pre-K efforts on disadvantaged children, emphasized more than the children they aim to serve. Middle- and upper-class kids might fare as well (or better) staying home. struggling to extricate itself from decades of pedagogical superstition and, as such, will almost certainly benefit providers to act may prove irresistible. Unfortunately, the current legislative proposals are misbegotten products of a field raising their kids and the growing belief that preschool prepares children for school and for life. The clamor for Congress Two powerful forces are driving the push for universal pre-K: the growing percentage of working parents who want help

annually for six years to strengthen existing pre-K programs. unfamiliar with English. Hawaii Democratic congresswoman Mazie Hirono's Pre-K Act would deliver states $1 billion may be necessary" to offer full-day voluntary preschool for four-year-olds, with priority given to those who are poor or Clinton's Ready to Learn Act, cosponsored by Missouri Republican Kit Bond, would provide states with "such funds as call for "Early Learning Challenge Grants" to help states "move toward voluntary, universal preschool." Senator Hillary access to quality, affordable early-childhood education for every child in America," and his campaign website features a and stronger. In June, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama proposed "investing $10 billion to guarantee all-time highs—congressional leaders in Washington are sponsoring various proposals to make these programs bigger With 38 states funding prekindergarten programs last year and more than 1 million children attending them—both

create and support high-quality preschools. show for it—is under growing pressure to spend billions more on a mission even more fraught with peril: helping states government, having spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to improve the nation's public schools—with little to

Anyone who has taught young children knows how daunting it can be to keep the attention of a roomful of four-year-olds, much less teach them anything. Parents and taxpayers thus have reason to worry that the federal

Autumn 2008 Needy kids could benefit, but only if we use proven pedagogy and hold programs accountable. Pre-K Can Work Shepard Barbash

A - 12

jumped from 96 to 121. In effect, the Bereiter-Engelmann preschool proved that efforts to close the achievement gap and doing math at a second-grade level. Engelmann found (and others later confirmed) that the mean IQ for the group who entered the preschool not knowing the meaning of "under," "over," or "Stand up!" went into kindergarten reading Champaign-Urbana that dramatically accelerated learning even in the most verbally deprived four-year-olds. Children Engelmann and two colleagues, Carl Bereiter and Jean Osborn, went on to open a half-day preschool for poor children in

African-American group (the deficit that Hart and Risley later quantified) and resolved to figure out how to overcome it. Engelmann's consternation, the affluent kids learned faster. He traced the difference to a severe language deficit in the of light entering and leaving a mirror. Both groups learned what Piaget said they couldn't at their age. But to —around 11 or 12." These things included concepts like relative direction (A is north of B but south of C) and the behavior "sophisticated patterns of reasoning. . . . things that Piaget said couldn't be taught before the age of formal operations took two groups of three- to five-year-olds—one white and affluent, one black and poor—and tried to teach them inception to an experiment he performed at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana in the summer of 1964. He

The one approach that Follow Through found had worked, Direct Instruction, was created by Siegfried Engelmann, who has written more than 100 curricula for reading, spelling, math, science, and other subjects. Engelmann dates DI's

for years. of children from poor families, nationally and in states like Georgia and Oklahoma, which have funded universal pre-K pre-K programs, and elementary education. One can infer their ongoing failure from the lagging academic performance to absorb public funds and drive the training, accreditation standards, and state policies that shape today's Head Start, But Follow Through's results proved too unpopular for the government to act on. Hence the same flawed ideas continue

too. approaches all shared the prevailing ideas. And if an approach fails in kindergarten, you can bet that it will fail in pre-K, traditional views—had consistently accelerated the academic achievement of poor children. The least successful 75,000 K-3 students. It found that only one of the nine methods examined—the one least in keeping with educators' grades, sponsored by the federal government in the 1970s and known as Project Follow Through, tracked more than elementary education as well. The largest experiment ever to compare different approaches to instruction in the early No amount of contrary data has been able to dislodge this constellation of beliefs, which afflicts not just pre-K but

activities. they do from adults). Many things that parents would call common sense are, for the preschool professional, high-risk instruction (because all children should receive equal treatment and because children learn as much from one another as assess their academic skills (medical, dental, and nutrition assessments are okay); and to group them by skill level for seat children at desks; to give them worksheets; to make them work to master the alphabet, letter sounds, and math; to From these premises flow a host of others. Pre-K teachers learn that it's not "developmentally appropriate practice" to

psychologist Jean Piaget, who believed that mental abilities developed in age-determined phases. either "learning disabled" or not yet "developmentally ready" to learn it—a notion derived from the theories of Swiss accelerate. If a child fails to learn something, it's not because the teaching is faulty, in this view; it's because the child is content of their own learning; and that a child's mental abilities develop at a natural pace that adults cannot do much to through play than through work; that children learn best and are happiest when they can help direct the pace and Central to the typical early-childhood educator's worldview are three ideas: that it's better for young children to learn

base their classroom efforts on theories and personal preferences that empirical evidence has repeatedly contradicted. practiced medicine 200 years ago, most early-childhood educators demonstrate little regard for scientific findings and they have not only failed to close the education gap but have done much over the years to widen it. Like those who We should temper our compassion for the overwhelmed Head Start and pre-K teachers, however, by recognizing that

deficits in the reading ability, and consequent prosperity, of adults. correlates closely with large deficits in vocabulary and reading ability at age nine—which, in turn, correlate with large parents of the welfare families. This astonishing language gap has grim consequences: follow-up studies showed that it welfare children. The oral vocabularies of the professional-family kids exceeded those not just of the children but of the more words than children from welfare families. The kids themselves had spoken over 4 million more words than the

n 8 13 authors found, children from families headed by parents who were professionals had heard, on average, over A -milliofrom welfare families so vast that it's hard to conceive how even the best preschool might erase it. By age three, the

This persistent failure deserves some sympathy. In their 1995 book, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children, researchers Betty Hart and Todd Risley quantified a language deficit in young children

"Can you use a pair of scissors to cut string?"

"Yes!"

paper?" "Get ready to answer some questions about a pair of scissors," Brown starts. "Can you use a pair of scissors to cut

opposites, and articulating descriptions. Today's language lesson includes work on the calendar, verb tenses, absurdities, questioning skills, definitions, lesson reinforces and extends several strands of knowledge and skills that the children have learned in earlier sessions. a lesson from "Language for Thinking," another DI curriculum. The transition takes no more than a minute. Each DI The lesson lasts 20 minutes, after which the children return to their clusters of desks and five others take their place for

"Six!" they all shout.

"Very good! Plus two means the number that is two more. So, four plus two equals what number? Everyone . . ."

the time to call on each one individually. programs, instantly lets her know whether all her students are learning what she is trying to teach without having to take signals with her hand, and seven voices in unison say: "Plus two!" The simultaneity of response, a feature of all DI "Read this," Brown says, pointing at the "+2" written on the blackboard. "Everyone, get ready." Following the script, she

assistant near the door. ordering pictures of the life stages of a butterfly. Two others get extra practice on a language lesson with Brown's I observed in June. Seven children sit in a semicircle around her. Nine others are at their desks, cutting out, coloring, and "We're going to start off with something really hard, but I think you can do it," Brown says, beginning a math lesson that

consistently. into three groups, arranged by skill level, to teach them more efficiently. She corrects mistakes quickly, firmly, and morning) as she delivers the fast-paced DI lessons, one each for language and math. During DI time she breaks the class work independently on exercises with pencil and paper, and concentrate for up to 30 minutes at a stretch (twice each Brown breaks the rules of her profession. In the first months of school, she teaches her four-year-olds to sit at desks,

and do simple addition problems. recognize logical absurdities, use synonyms and if/then statements, create definitions for objects, read simple sentences, follow simple directions. By the end of the school year, they have learned to sort objects into classes, identify opposites, learning English. Many arrive not knowing how to hold a pair of scissors, use pronouns, speak in complete sentences, or her students come from poor homes, more than half are African-American or Latino, and one-third are immigrants still math, reading, and language curricula there for ten years, the last five in all-day, state-funded pre-K. Eighty percent of

One site that has endured is Hampstead Hill Academy, a public charter school (pre-K to grade 8) operated by the Baltimore Curriculum Project, a nonprofit organization specializing in Direct Instruction. Stephanie Brown has taught DI

to relapse after a new principal or superintendent capriciously dropped the program. leadership, and Engelmann says that he knows of 200 places that improved student achievement after adopting DI, only preschools or KÂ-12 schools use DI curricula. None of the early DI preschool sites survived the whims of changing establishment. Few education schools teach Direct Instruction techniques, except for special-ed classes, and few country. Yet despite these successes, DI has faced little but scorn, neglect, and incomprehension from the educational Engelmann's results at the University of Illinois were replicated during the 1970s and 80s at nine sites across the

at most of the preschool day. miscommunications that could confuse the student. The scripting also improves efficiency: DI lessons consume an hour sequence of interactions. Engelmann's field testing found that the scripts were the best way to prevent teacher latitude in the classroom. Unlike other curricula, Direct Instruction programs tether teachers to a tightly scripted the most sacred myth of the profession: that teachers always know best how to teach their kids, and hence deserve wide (and judiciously revise) the instruction, not the child, when the instruction failed. This approach in turn meant trampling

The school also found that kids enjoyed learning "hard things" from adults and gained confidence as they gained skills. The key was to design the instruction carefully enough so that it worked even for the disadvantaged child—anA -to blame d 14

grade—and likely longer, though studies on the longer-term effects weren't performed. could begin years earlier than most educators had thought possible. The effects lasted, at a minimum, until second

critics argued speciously that the tests ignored socio-emotional development and that the questions weren't

The other hole in the nation's pre-K system is assessment, still a dirty word in most pre-K circles. Congress eliminated the Head Start National Reporting System, a series of cognitive tests given twice a year to Head Start children, after

pre-K programs has even compared the effects of competing curricula on student outcomes. such tests)—let alone by requiring districts that take state money to use them. Likewise, none of the studies of state decisions about curricula by, say, posting a list of programs that have passed rigorous field tests (or even by requiring Budweiser is to get beaten by a microbrewery. So far, none of the 38 states funding pre-K has interfered with local developed and approved for use in schools, these giants are about as likely to lose significant sales to the likes of DI as controls about half the Head Start market. Another big seller is High/Scope. Absent major changes in how curricula get teachers how to teach oral language and phonological awareness the fast way. The most popular, Creative Curriculum, The great stone in the road to a better preschool, in fact, is the dominance of pedagogical programs that don't show

form of the middle-class upbringing; you've got to try to reproduce the function. That means teaching kids the fast way." must learn more in less time, he is less experienced at learning, and he needs more practice. You can't reproduce the remains Hart and Risley's data on the language gap. "Time is the great enemy of the at-risk child," Engelmann says. "He But the most significant—and least appreciated—research finding that justifies DI's intensive, prescriptive approach

Most children in poverty and children with hearing deficits must be taught them explicitly, as DI does. essential "pre-reading" skills—known collectively as phonological awareness—in the normal course of their upbringing. specific sounds), learn the alphabet, and hear alliterations and syllables. Most middle-class children acquire these distinguish words that rhyme, and by four, they can understand the concept "letter" (that marks on a page correspond to manipulate the individual sounds, known as phonemes, that make up words. Further, by three, most can learn to per-minute built in to DI curricula. Research has also confirmed that it's possible to teach three-year-olds to hear and

Direct Instruction rests on key findings in educational research. Children, particularly from poor homes, need lots of oral practice to master language and reading, studies have shown—hence the high number of responses-evoked-

Brown says. "Even the ones with behavior problems—it settles them." playing with blocks or kitchen utensils. "The children aren't stressed out—they feel like the smartest kids on the planet," art, music, free play, gym, story time, and theme-based centers where students get to choose their activities, such as Brown does DI lessons in the morning when the children are fresh. The rest of the day is devoted to standard pre-K fare:

A boy says: "A hammer hurts you when it hits you, and a broom doesn't."

"Very good. How are they different?"

One girl answers: "They both have handles."

"I'm thinking of a broom and a hammer. How are they the same?"

"The story made us feel happy."

"The story made us feel sad. Now say the sentence that tells the opposite."

The group answers correctly in unison.

"Name the 12 months of the year," Brown says.

the language deficit in poor children. The focus today is on calendar facts, opposites, and similarities. The least advanced group comes up for a lesson in "Language for Learning," the program Engelmann wrote to address

She calls on a little girl who points out the absurdity.

out a broom." "Listen to this story and figure out what's wrong with it. There was a woman. She wanted to wash the dishes, so she got

A - 15 (Laughter.) "No!"

"Can you tear scissors into little pieces?"

"Yes!"

age-appropriate. Of the $3.72 billion spent by states last year on pre-K, almost nothing went to assessing children's cognitive functioning or monitoring their progress against established norms. Without such data, states cannot set meaningful performance standards, much less hold districts accountable for meeting them.

Indeed, the nonprofit National Institute for Early Education Research doesn't even include assessment in its A -n16tem te -i Quality Standards Checklist, a popular tool for judging state pre-K programs. This is like appraising a painting with your eyes closed. The better curricula, DI included, build checkups in to their programs—another reason many educators don't like them.

If the early-childhood education industry has persuaded states not to assess preschool children, monitor their progress, prescribe rigorously field-tested curricula, and evaluate the impact of individual preschools on student achievement—and if the state agencies don't know how to do these things any better than the pre-K field from which their leadership is largely drawn—what can we expect the states to do to make early-childhood education more educational? Not much at this stage.

None of the bills in Congress is likely to increase rigor. Hirono's Pre-K Act and Clinton and Bond's Ready to Learn Act would support state plans that require "culturally and linguistically appropriate" curricula that meet the child's "developmental needs" and are taught by teachers with degrees in early-childhood education or related fields. Either proposal would thus probably wind up spending a fortune perpetuating the fanciful doctrines that still dominate early- childhood education programs: the root of the weed.

The good news is that there are data-driven educators scattered in schools across the country, and even within a few state education agencies, who would be natural allies in a crusade for better pre-K. Alabama, Washington State, Arizona, and the federal Bureau of Indian Education have all built strong leadership in Reading First, the federal program targeted at poor children in K-3 that requires teachers to use research-backed practices. Officials there could gradually extend the use of effective curricula to pre-K. Another way to find allies is to ask vendors of the better curricula for sites that are doing well with their products. Bremerton School District in Washington State and Versa Reece Academy, a public school in Houston, both operate rigorous, data-driven preschool programs for poor children. But such areas remain in the minority.

If the philanthropists now investing in pre-K (more than $1 billion per year, by some estimates) want to try something radical, they might start a preschool modeled on Paul Weisberg's now-defunct Early Childhood Day Care Center for at-risk kids in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Using teachers who didn't even have a college education, Weisberg ran a DI preschool that produced impressive student achievement gains in reading and language for a decade, vividly demonstrating that what pre-K providers need most is good training in good curricula, not (as governments are now hearing) degrees in early-childhood education.

Even teachers with fallacious assumptions want to succeed and are generally eager to learn new ways to help their kids. Wise policymakers can promote the ways that work, and wise parents can insist that teachers use them. We cherish our myths about childhood. We must cherish our children even more.

Shepard Barbash is a freelance writer and former education advisor to the Atlanta Public Schools. His most recent book is Changing Dreams.

Return to

A

ed: State Level 007-2008

Grades: Type: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) elections | Return to Summary Reports | New Query

State State Level 0000 8 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report - Page 2 Did the State make Number of students enrolled in the grades tested: Read: 1625876 2007-2008

NA Adequate Yearly NO ere to see the number of students in each group.) Math: 1624273 School Grade1: Progress?

on shows the percent tested and performance for each group used to determine AYP This section shows the This section shows the pnd c2). improvement for each group used to of students "on track" to

proficient used to determidetermine AYP via safe harbor (Part b2). via the growth model.

% of 58% 62% Percent of Percent of % of students Students Safe Students Safe on track Growth students GReading Math scoring scoring rIncreased Tested Tested at or at or above Improvedinperformance below below model on trackGraduation 95% of 95% of above oup grade R rg grade Harbtor prtofibe t reading to beeadioHarb in Writ g by 1%? 3by 1%? the the grade grade students? students? level in level in

Reading? Math? 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 97 97 97 98 98

97

98

98

96

Y Y Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

97 97 97 98 98

97

98

98

96

Y Y Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

60 71 42 53 75

64

48

37

34

Y Y N N Y

Y

N

N

N

66 76 47 61 85

71

54

47

38

Y Y N N Y

Y

N

N

N

93 94 90 91

92 94 90 91

YYYYY

Y

N

N

Y

Rate n Ma h o cien proficielevel in level in in in mathReading Math reading 2006 2007 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2007 2008 Y/N 2008 Y/N 2008 68 Y 43 40 NA 72 NA 37 34 NA 59 70 78 32 29 NA 79 NA 26 24 Y NA 67 79 53 61 58 N 58 N 57 53 NY 45 55 61 N 69 Y 49 47 N 43 39 N 56 64 82 NA 87 28 25 NA 17 15 NA N 73 82

N 73 NA 75 38 36 NA 32 29 NA N 62 72 94 93

CALLY 54 N 63 54 52 N 50 Y 46 N 51 56 89 89 NTAGED

N 62 64 63 N 56 53 NGE 46 48 Y 49 83 81 S

TS WITH IES Y 40 N 49 69 66 N 67 62 N37 38 75 76

Y/N - Was the required target met? Yes or No NA - is shown when the number of students in the group is less than 304

Economically Disadvantaged - Eligible for free or reduced price lunch ELL - English Language Learners SWD - Students with Disabilities

or the data are not applicable.

Appeals Results Summary, 2008 (Excel) School Accountability Report Main

2008 School Accountability Report Guide Sheet and Example Report (PDF) School Grades Technical Assistance Paper 2007-08 (PDF)

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Technical Assistance Paper 2007-08 (PDF) Alternative School Improvement Ratings Technical Assistance Paper 2007-08 (PDF)

To Previous Year's Accountability Report Spread Sheets and Documents Return to Evaluation and Reporting Services Section

DOE Home Page

Growth Model: If any group does nmeet the proficiency and safe harborequirements, the percentage of stuin that group who are on track to beproficient within three years should for reading and 62% for math. Thatmust also make progress in writing proficiency and graduation rate. Nois eligible for the Growth Model if thschool fails to meet participation crfor all subgroups and the writing, graduation rate, and school grade cfor the school in total.

ded by the Florida Department of Education, July 2008. Subject to review and verification by local school district staff.

group in Part a does not meet the proficiency target, the percentage of students in that group who are below the proficiency target in reading or mathematics should be reduced by at least 10%. That group also must make progress in writing proficiency and graduation rate. No group is eligible for Safe Harbor if the school fails to meet participation criteria for all subgroups and the writing, graduation rate, and school grade criteria for the school in total.

oup is tested, if each group meets the proficiency targets in reading and mathematics, and if -wide writing percent proficient and graduation rate increases.

ested and Proficiency Levels (Part a and c2): A school or school district makes AYP if 95% Safe Harbor (Part b2): If any der to maintain the anonymity and privacy of students, proficiency data is not displayed for values <=5% and >=95% ercentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. The Y and N designations indicate if there was a 1% increase.

of the school's tested population or 100 students is required for each group within a school.

rt" designations used in this table correspond to the three main paragraphs in the Federal regulations for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind 2. The regulations, effective January 2, 2004, were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 231, on December 2, 2003. Sections 200.13-200.21 describe the to be collected and how to determine AYP. ool-wide data for writing and graduation rate are used in Part a. Any group not meeting the reading or mathematics targets under Part a is reviewed in Part b-SafA -Harborewriting percent proficient is >90 or the graduation rate is >85, increases are not required.

al number of students in a school is greater than ten, adequate yearly progress for the school will be determined; however, a minimum of 30 students and represents more

lorida's AYP plan, schools with a grade of D or F cannot be designated as making AYP.