inappropriate id state monitoring results state methodologies framework policies & procedures
DESCRIPTION
Exploring Inappropriate Identification Leadership for Equity and Excellence Forum February 16, 2010 Sue Gamm, Esq. [email protected] Public Consulting Group. INAPPROPRIATE ID State Monitoring Results State Methodologies Framework Policies & Procedures Monitoring. STATE MONITORING RESULTS . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Organizing an Effective Delivery System: From Law to Practice Long Island Association of Special Education Administrators Jan. 27 2009 Winter Conference Sue Gamm, Esq. [email protected] Public Consulting Group
Exploring Inappropriate Identification
Leadership for Equity and Excellence ForumFebruary 16, 2010
Sue Gamm, Esq. [email protected] Consulting Group
INAPPROPRIATE IDState Monitoring ResultsState Methodologies FrameworkPolicies & ProceduresMonitoringIn 2007-08, a growing number of states reported no school districts with disproportionate rep due to inappropriate identification.
STATE MONITORING RESULTS
Number of States with No Inappropriate ID2005-6: 26 states (52%)2007-8: 42 states (84%)
INDICATOR 913: No disproportionate representation29: No inappropriate identificationOF THE 42 STATES
No. SEAs with Various Percent of LEAS with Inappropriate ID % LEAs0%0.1 - 2.9%3.0 5.9%6.0- 8.9%9% or >No. LEAs05-626133324706-73874105007-842611050States with no inappropriate ID increased by 62% (26 to 42) States > 3% LEAs with inappropriate ID reduced by 75% (8 to 2)
FROM FY 2006 to 2008
Number of States with No Inappropriate ID2005-6: 6 states (12%) 2007-8: 34 states (69%)
INDICATOR 106: No disproportionate representation28: No inappropriate identificationOF THE 34 STATES
No. SEAs with Various Percent of LEAS having Inappropriate ID % LEAs0%0.1- 3.9%4.0- 7.9%8.0- 11.9%12% or >No. LEAs05-621113644506-727133324807-8341211149 States with no inappropriate ID increased by 62% (21 to 34) States > 4% LEAs with inappropriate ID reduced by 76% (13 to 3)
FROM FY 2006 to 2008
Increased no inappropriate ID 9. 62% (26 to 42)10. 62% (21 to 34) Decreased more than 3% 9. 75% (8 to 2)10. 76% (13 to 3)
SEAs FY 06 to 08
Celebration Time
SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE Defining disproportionate representationMonitoring LEASDetermining inappropriate ID
In August 2009, OSEPs Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network issued a report on Indicators 9 and 10, with two chapters: Data Accountability Center (DAC) and NCRTI each prepared one chapter
14DEFINITIONSCut-points range from 1.5 to 4 Various cell sizes Impact # targeted LEAs
In August 2009, OSEPs Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network issued a report on Indicators 9 and 10, with two chapters: Data Accountability Center (DAC) and NCRTI each prepared one chapter
1526: State-level monitoring activities 25: Targeted LEAs self-assess 3: General self-assess not linked to disproportionality17: Tool/rubric for self-study 3: Different process over/under
MONITORING METHODSIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
16At a minimum must comply with: Child find (300.111)Policies, procedures & practices with SEAs (300.201) Assessment and eligibility (300.301-300.311). FINDING INAPPROPRIATE IDIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
17RtI optional in LD eligibility process Must consider PBIS for student whose behavior impedes his/her learning or that of others RtI & PBIS in IDEAIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
18
QueryIs compliance with minimum OSEP requirements sufficient to reduce disproportionality?
In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
20LEAs with significant disproportionality must use 15% IDEA funds for EIS activities because research shows positive impact on identification of targeted racial/ethnic groups.
In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
21OSEP will begin to look more closely at how states decide if LEAs are disproportionally identifying students as having disabilities. In particular, will review more closely the various formulas states use in making these determinations.OSEP Monitoring ChiefIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
22 Max & Sues Core Beliefs
SEA/LEA that restrict PP&P and monitoring to strict IDEA mandates may set students up for identification when they may may otherwise respond positively to RTI & PBIS. In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
24LD
Disability or ABT?Eligibility decisions related to students poor performance in reading or behavior must beconditioned on the receipt of research-based instruction. In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)
26
Designing
Change
27
Talk About It
Disproportionality in Special Education: Where & Why it Occurs
PP&P Framework
Monitoring Framework
Lets Talk:What is Inappropriate ID?
Electronic Support33
Identify students who need supportIdentify students needing support34Student IDLast NameFirst NameGradeTierAreaSuccess/Failure AlertPrescribed Time SpentGoalIntervention 7946
Rick
Queza 3
2
Reading
Intervention Fidelity Compromised30 Minutes/ 3 Days a Week
Fluency to grade level
Lexia
0514
Ron
Mejia
3
2
Reading
Intervention Fidelity Compromised30 Minutes/ 3 Days a Week
Fluency to grade level
Lexia
2302
Dave
Willia
3
3
Reading
Intervention Fidelity Compromised45 Minutes/5 Days a Week
Improved comprehension to grade levelSuccess Maker
7488
Maria
Davis
3
2
Reading
Intervention Fidelity Compromised45 Minutes/3 Days a Week
Improved comprehension to grade levelSoar to Success
2299
Carlos
Figuer 4
2
Reading
Intervention Fidelity Compromised
15 Minutes/3 Days a Week
Fluency to grade level
Repeated readings6376
Steph
Fimbre
4
3
Reading
Intervention Fidelity Compromised
45 Minutes/5 Days a Week
Improved comprehension to grade level
Success Maker
Are interventions implemented with fidelity?
Is the intervention working?36
Which supports are working best for students?37
School and District Dashboards38
39