rural districts and districts with low incidence of students with an intellectual disability:...
TRANSCRIPT
Rural Districts and Districts with Low Incidence of Students with an
Intellectual Disability:
Implications and Expectations PJ et al. v. State of Connecticut et al.
Settlement Agreement
Anne Louise ThompsonHeather Levitt-Doucette
Connecticut State Department of Education
Sarah BarzeeSpecial Education Resource Center
December 1, 2004Radisson Hotel, Cromwell, CT
Today’s Purpose
• To create the conditions for rural districts and districts with a low incidence of students with an intellectual disability to knowledgeably and responsibly educate an increased number of students with an intellectual disability in their home school and in regular classes.
Today’s Session
• Identify Implications of the Settlement Agreement for Rural and Low Incidence Districts
• Clarify Expectations of the CSDE• Promote the Value of Data for Planning
and Assessment• Illustrate Successes in Rural and Low
Incidence Districts• Provide Opportunities to Share Ideas
PJ ET AL.v
State of Connecticut, State Board of Education, ET AL.
Implications of the Settlement Agreement
Implications-Findings
Class Action’ lawsuit affects every child with an intellectual disability, his/her family and his/her school staff.
Class Membership – All school-age children with the label mental retardation/intellectual disability on or after February 20, 1991 who are not educated in regular classrooms.
Implications-Findings
• 80 of the 129 districts sent attestations to the CSDE about plans and implementation, 49 districts did not.
• 1/3 of class members are in 129 rural and low incidence districts of the total 169 districts in the state.
Implications-Findings
• The aggregated data for the 145 districts (129 of which are rural or low incidence) not specifically targeted for intervention (24 districts have been targeted) are not changing with respect to the goals of the Settlement Agreement.
Percent of K-12 ID/MR Students Spend ing >79% of Time with Non-Disabled Peers24 LRE Districts versus 145 Remaining Districts
***2003-2004 Data Are Preliminary***
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Connecticut
24 LRE Districts
Settlement Agreement Reached
2756 25722403 2303 2168
1970
1347 1367 1356 13791376 1407
N=
N=
Percent of K-12 ID/MR Students Attending Their Home School24 LRE Districts versus 145 Remaining Districts
***2003-2004 Data Are Preliminary***
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2001 2002 2003
Connecticut
24 LRE Districts
Settlement Agreement Reached23032168
1970
1379 1376 1407N=
N=
Implications-Findings
Therefore the CSDE concludes:
Planned interventions by the CSDE to impact district data changes, statewide, on the goals of the Settlement Agreement have not had noticeable effect on the 145 non-targeted districts.
Implications- Interventions
• All district availability of trainings that provide skills for responsible inclusive practices for school personnel
• All district availability of Step By Step and School Based Practices Profile training
• All district availability of BOE presentations
• All district availability of parent trainings
Implications- Interventions
• All district availability to visit Spotlight Schools
• All district receipt of LRE Newsletter• Focused Monitoring on LRE and
overrepresentation that transcends district size
• Review of complaints and due process decisions related to LRE/class members (on-site visits; investigation in light of PJ Settlement Agreement)
PJ ET AL.v
State of Connecticut, State Board of Education, ET AL.
Expectations of the State Department of Education
Expectations of the SDE
Use Data for Reflection
and Future Planning
Color Coded District DataRelative Standing on LRE Goals of the PJ et. al. v.
State of Connecticut Settlement Agreement
Mean TWNDP for All In-District
Students with Disabilities
Mean TWNDP for All Preschool Students with
Disabilities (Does not
include Students Receiving Itinerant Services)
Percent of all Students With
Disabilities who Spend 0-40% of
the Day with Non-disabled
Peers
Overrepresentation of Students with Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity
Difference between District Graduation Rate for All Students and Graduation
Rate for Students with Disabilities
Below State Figure on:Home School and Percent in Regular Class OR Any 3 Goals
Mean TWNDP less than 75%
Mean TWNDP less than 50%
Greater than 16% spending 0-40% TWNDP
Overrepresentation in 3-4 areas of disability
Difference greater than 46.8%
Below State Figure on:Home School OR Percent in Regular Class OR Any 2 Goals
Mean TWNDP 75%-80%
Mean TWNDP 50%-80%
10%-16% spending 0-40% TWNDP
Significant Overrepresentation in one area of disability
Difference 20-46.8%
Above State Figure on:Home School, Percent in Regular Class, Mean and Median TWNDP OR All LRE Goals
Mean TWNDP greater than 80%
Mean TWNDP greater than 80%
Less than 16% spending 0-40% TWNDP
No significant overrepresentation
Difference less than 20%
No students with ID/MR No non-itinerant preschool students
No district wide graduation rate calculated
Not a local school district; Only Regional
Not a local school district; Only Regional
Not a local school district; Only Regional
Not a local school district; Only Regional
Not a local school district; Only Regional
Not a local school district; Only Regional
RE
GIO
NA
L
DIS
TR
ICT
Color Coded District Data
Region #19:
Mean TWNDP for In-District Students Less than 75%
=
Willington:
=
=
=
Mean TWNDP for In-District Students Greater than 80%
Ashford:
Mean TWNDP for In-District Students 75%-80%
Mansfield: Mean TWNDP for In-District Students Less than 75%
Expectations of the SDE
The general education class with support is the FIRST option considered, regardless of disability type or severity.
Expectations of the SDESystematic Decision Making Process to Determine IEP Supports in the General Education Curriculum and Environment
Form 2 Cl assr oom Acti vity Anal ysis Work sheet
Student Name: Date: LEVEL OF SUPPORT TYPE OF SUPPORT
Classroomnformation
Accommodations or Modifications? Personal Assistance?(¦ most appropriate support)
me Class/Subject
As Is? WithAccommo-dations?
If yes,Describe
Accommodations
WithCurricular
Modification?
If yes,Describe
Modification.
ExternalSupport(modify
materials)
In-ClassSupport
(support provided inside the regular education classroom)
SpecializedSupport
(outside thereg. ed. class)
Peer Para. SpecialEduc.TeacherSF CT
SpecialPop.TeacherSF CT
Speech/Lang.Path.
RelatedServiceStaff
©2000, Stetson and Associates, Inc.
Accommodation: A change made to the teaching or testing procedures in order to provide a student with access to information and to create an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate knowledge and skills (HOW)
Accommodations do not change the instructional level, content, or performance criteria for meeting standards; they do not alter the big idea or major learning outcomes expected of the instruction.
Modification: A change in what the student is expected to learn and/or demonstrate (WHAT)
While a student may be working on modified course content, the subject area remains the same as for the rest of the class.
Modifications may alter the subject matter or the expected performance of the student.
Best Practice
Best practices to facilitate inclusion are identical to best
practices for educating all
students.
Best Practice
•Differentiation of Instruction, Practice and Assessment
•Peer Supported Instruction (e.g.; cooperative learning, peer partners)
•Positive Behavioral Supports
•Well trained paraprofessional support to enhance, not hinder, academic, social, emotional and behavioral gains
School Based Practices Profile
Dimensions of Effective (Inclusive) Education
PJ ET AL.v
State of Connecticut, State Board of Education, ET AL.
Recognizing the Challenges
Challenges to Rural Districts and Districts with Low Incidence of
Students with an ID
• Be aware Challenges exist
• Legitimize that these are Challenges
• Recognize Challenges are not necessarily unique to your district
• Acknowledge that somewhere another district has overcome these Challenges
Illustrations of Success
New Fairfield- Christine Gantor and Marie Hopkins (Easton)
East Hampton- George Culp
Coventry- Judith Richard
Suffield- Anne Loughrain
Mary Bruno-Formerly of Shelton
Sarah Barzee(860) 632-1485 ext [email protected]
Anne Louise Thompson(860) [email protected]
Heather Levitt Doucette(860) [email protected]
For Further Information