special education leadership - esc13.net · special education leadership network ... staffing...

4/12/2017

1

Special Education Leadership Network MeetingApril 13, 2017

Big Cases from SCOTUS: What’s the Impact on Special Ed?

Presented by: JIM WALSH

SCOTUS Case Number One

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools

It was about WONDER the service dog.

Parents asked school to allow Wonder to come to school with kindergarten child.

School said no—it was already providing a one-to-one aide for the child. No need for a dog when you have a human.

4/12/2017

2

And Then…

Parents moved to another district where Wonder was welcome in public school.

Parents sued first district under Section 504/ADA. Parents make no claim of denial of FAPE or any violation of IDEA.

District files Motion to Dismiss due to “failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”

SEE NEXT SLIDE for explanation.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

General rule: if administrative remedies are available, you must use them first before filing suit in court.

IDEA procedures are a good example of this. Parents must “exhaust” the special ed due process procedures before filing suit.

But here, parents argue—this isn’t about IDEA. It’s about 504.

Lower Courts

Federal district court sided with the school. Ordered the case dismissed due to failure to exhaust.

Circuit Court agreed with that.

SCOTUS reversed—unanimously. Parent can go straight to court if the “gravamen” of the suit is something other than denial of FAPE.

4/12/2017

3

So What About Wonder?

SCOTUS did not say whether the school had to allow Wonder. It vacated the Circuit Court ruling and sent the case back to that court.

But there are strong hints as to how this is going to come out.

What’s the “Gravamen” of the Suit?

Justice Kagan suggests four questions to ask:

1. What does the lawsuit say it’s about?

2. Could you bring the same complaint against a public entity other than a school? Like a library? Park? Municipal building?

3. Could an adult bring the same complaint?

4. Did parents begin the administrative process and then drop it?

Practical Implications

The Court’s ruling about “exhaustion” should not be the concern of educators or parents. This is a procedural issue for the lawyers to worry about.

For educators and parents, the case strongly hints at how requests for service animals should be handled.

SEE NEXT SLIDE!

4/12/2017

4

Service Animals: Two Issues

Does the child need the service animal in order to receive FAPE? This is an IDEA issue and should be decided by the IEP Team.

If the answer is YES, then put it in the IEP.

If the answer is NO, go to Question Two.

Is the child entitled to the service animal as per Section 504/ADA guidance? Is it required as an element of equal access?

SCOTUS Case Number Two

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1.

This one’s about what FAPE means.

SCOTUS defined FAPE in 1982 in Rowley v. Board of Education. But the Court noted that its analysis in that case was limited to kids like Amy Rowley—mainstreamed students achieving on grade level.

Endrew and Amy

Endrew is not mainstreamed, is not on grade level, and by all accounts never will be. So the question is: for a student like that, how do you measure “FAPE”?

4/12/2017

5

The Arguments

Parents: Congress has raised the standards every time they re-authorized IDEA. The bar has been raised since 1982 and the Court should recognize this.

School: The definition of FAPE is in the law. Congress knows how the Court interpreted it in 1982, and Congress has not changed it since then. Leave it to Congress to make a change—not the Court.

How Mushy Can You Get?

The case is about whether a student is entitled to “some” benefit; “meaningful” benefit; “significant” benefit; “more than de minimis” benefit or, in Judge Gorsuch’s phrase “merely more than de minimis” benefit.

And the Court concluded…..

SCOTUS Sets the Standard

“…a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

Court rejected the school’s “merely more than de minimis” standard.

Also rejected the standard sought by the parent. SEE NEXT SLIDE.

4/12/2017

6

What Endrew’s Parents Sought….

“…opportunities to achieve academic success, attain self-sufficiency, and contribute to society that are substantially equal to the opportunities afforded children without disabilities.”

SCOTUS: we rejected this 35 years ago in Rowley. It’s “an entirely unworkable standard requiring impossible measurements and comparisons.”

Is This a New Standard for FAPE?

For the 10th Circuit, this is a new standard. They have been operating on “merely more than de minimis” which is now rejected.

In other Circuits, this may not be a change at all.

Endrew’s lawyers divide the Circuits into three groups.

SEE NEXT SLIDE!

Three Groups of Circuit Courts

“Meaningful benefit”: 3rd and 6th Circuits.

“Just above trivial”: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th and 11th. These courts have expressly rejected a higher standard and thus disagree with 3rd and 6th.

Have not expressly rejected the higher standard, but appear to be still using a “just above trivial” standard: 2nd, 5th and 8th.

4/12/2017

7

What Does It Really Mean?????

How to Proceed

It might be wise to start by asking: is this student more like Amy Rowley, or Endrew F.? Keep in mind that each student is unique, each IEP is individualized, so this is just a starter question.

In either case, design an IEP that is “appropriately ambitious.”

“The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.”

JIM WALSHAustin OfficeP.O. Box 2156Austin, Texas 78768Phone: 512-454-6864Fax: 512-467-9318Email: [email protected]: www.WalshGallegos.comTwitter: https://twitter.com/JWalshtxlawdawg

4/12/2017

8

The information in this handout was prepared byWalsh Gallegos Treviño Russo & Kyle P.C. It isintended to be used for general information onlyand is not to be considered specific legal advice. Ifspecific legal advice is sought, consult an attorney.

© Walsh Gallegos 2017

SCOTUS Decision Conversation

Read, highlight, take notes

What a page turner!

4/12/2017

9

Amy or Endrew?

AmyIn your LEA is this the norm?

“For children fully integrated in the regular classroom, this would typically require an IEP ‘reasonably calculated to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.’”

AmyIn your LEA are systems in place to meet the requirements for Accelerated Instruction/Intensive Programs of Instruction?

(STAAR results next week)

4/12/2017

10

EndrewEndrew “exhibited multiple behaviors that inhibited his ability to access learning in the classroom.” (Endrewwould scream in class, climb over furniture and other students, and occasionally run away from school. He was afflicted by severe fears of commonplace things like flies, spills, and public restrooms.)

In your LEA are systems in place to develop, implement, and monitor FBAs/BIPs for students such as Endrew?

EndrewIn your LEA is this is norm?

“If that (grade level advancement) is not a reasonable prospect for a child, his IEP need not aim for grade‐level advancement. But his educational program must be

appropriately ambitiousin light of his circumstances… The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance

to meet challenging objectives.”

Endrew“A student offered an educational program providing ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.”

In your LEA are systems in place to monitor IEP progress and act if there is “barely more than de minimis progress”?

4/12/2017

11

Amy and Endrew

Review of Existing Evaluation Data (REED) Process

Continuum of Placements

4/12/2017

12

Assessment Tools and Protocols

Quality PLAAFPS and “Appropriately Ambitious” Goals

Data Collection and Progress Monitoring Systems

4/12/2017

13

Staffing Support and Resources

How can we help?

New Director CollaborativeDEVELOPED BY: THE TEXAS EDUCATION SERVICE CENTERS

4/12/2017

14

The Texas Education Service Center (ESC) New Director Collaborative is a joint project of the twenty Texas ESC's working together to provide training modules on special education topics that support new directors and provide consistent

information across the state.

Age of Majority ARD Agenda CEISDiscipline ECI ESYEDGAR & GEPA FIEP ISAM ContactsLEA Determinations Legal Framework Non‐Ed FundsNon‐Ed Services Operating Guidelines PEIMS/SAAHPrivate Nurse Agreements Progress Monitoring Residential Application ProcessRider 70 SnapShot SPP 7‐14 OverviewTEAL TEASE Transfer Students

Transition

Special Education Spotlights

These are information modules that address topics referenced in the Timeline Topic modules in greater detail. These are developed by contributing Texas ESCs or reference Texas Education Agency materials.

Timeline Topics

These are quarterly modules highlighting items that need to be addressed within the current quarter's timeframe. They are developed each quarter by the current project leaders.

1st Quarter2nd Quarter3rd Quarter4th Quarter

4/12/2017

15

Hot Topics

These modules are generated as needed depending on what is trending in state and are developed by contributing ESCs.

Suggestions Welcome

Let’s Explore

Livebinder Link:

http://www.livebinders.com/play/play?id=1647085#anchor or

Search Special Education ESC New Director Collaborative on Livebindersite

Questions? Suggestions for content?

Contact Lori Merrell [email protected] or Ann Jinkins [email protected]

NEW OR TRANSFER STUDENTS

4/12/2017

16

TRANSFER STUDENTSWho: Students who enroll 1st day of school of a new school year or during school year

• Enrollment procedures support early identification

• Verify special education status

• Request records

• Provide comparable services

• Within 30 school days:

• Adopt IEP or

• Hold ARD to develop new IEP

And….we know that TEA monitors transfer students

NEW STUDENTSWho: Students who move to the LEA over the summer and are newly enrolled PRIOR to the 1st day of school of a new school year (ie: early enrollment, charter lottery, parents and district communicating to support transition to new district, etc) .

• Verify special education status

• Request records

• Adopt IEP or

• Hold ARD to develop new IEP prior to 1st day of classes

• If no IEP from previous district…

• “District/Charter must take steps to ensure that the student has an IEP in place.”

Not Transfer Anymore!

WHY

IDEA 34 CFR §300.323(a)

At the beginning of each school year, each LEA must have in effect, for each student with a disability within its jurisdiction, an individualized education program (IEP), as defined in 34 CFR §300.320.

So….

Districts and charters need to have a process for ensuring that an IEP is in effect at the beginning of the school year

And…TEA says that it does not monitor students who come in during the summer.

4/12/2017

17

CERTIFICATION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

4 . 1 3 . 2 0 1 7 A N N J I N K I N S

TAC RULE CURRENTLY IN EFFECT

• Chapter §231.611. Special Education Teacher.

• (a) Subject to the requirements in subsection (c) of this section, an assignment for Special Education Teacher is allowed with one of the following certificates (a listing of all special education certification areas).

• If an individual is providing content instruction in a special education classroom setting,

– a valid certificate that matches the subject and grade level of the assignment is also required,

– OR

– the individual must demonstrate competency through the state's 2010 and 2011 high objective uniform State standard of evaluation (HOUSSE) for elementary and secondary special education teachers. HOUSSE not in ESSA

ESSA - CERTIFIED OR NOT?• Elementary special education resource and inclusion teacher K-5th

– Special education

– Generalist EC-4

• Elementary self contained special education behavior teacher 1st-5th


– Generalist EC-6

• Elementary self-contained special education life skills teacher 1st-5th


– Generalist EC-4

• PPCD teacher (ages 3-5)


4/12/2017

18

ESSA - CERTIFIED OR NOT?• Middle school special education resource and inclusion teacher 6-8 all subjects


– HOUSSE ELA and HOUSSE Social Studies

• Middle school special education life skills teacher 6-8


– Generalist EC-4

• High school special education resource and inclusion algebra teacher


– Social studies

– HOUSSE math

• High school learning lab teacher 9-12 all subjects


• High school special education credit recovery teacher in ‘electronic courseware’ lab 9-12 all subjects

– Special Education

– PE

IMPLICATIONS OF NO HOUSSE

RULE REVIEW IN PROCESS NOW

• 3.30.2017 Notice of Proposed Review of Title 19, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 231

• 3.31.2017 to 5.1.2017 Public Comment Period on the Rule ReviewComments as identified "SBEC Rule Review“ and submitted to [email protected].

• 6.9.2017 Oral and written comments at meeting in accordance with the SBEC board operating policies and procedures.

• 6.9.2017 Earliest Possible Date of Adoption

4/12/2017

19

SPPELIZABETH DANNER

LORI MERRELL

Equity in IDEA and PBMAS

What does this mean?

Objectives:

• Identify purpose of the USDE’s IDEA-B regulations• Identify potential changes in PBMAS• Develop knowledge of the representation, placement and

discipline indicators• Share the proposed timeline for changes to meet

compliance

4/12/2017

20

Promote equity in IDEA. Help states meaningfully identify districts with significant

disproportionality. Ensure children with disabilities are properly identified for

services. Address the well-documented and detrimental over-

identification of certain students for special education services.◦ Source: Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 243/December 19, 2016, p. 92376.

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2017. All rights reserved.58

Timeline:

December 19, 2016: Final regulations under IDEA-B posted in the Federal Register

January 18, 2017: Final regulations went into effect

July 1, 2018: States must be in compliance with these regulations (IE: Identify districts that are not in compliance)

Requires states to collect and examine data based on RACE and ETHNICITY for:

• Identification and identification with a particular impairment

• Placement in particular educational settings

• Disciplinary removals from placement, including suspensions and expulsions

4/12/2017

21

Requires states to apply prescribed calculations for:

• 7 race/ethnicities and 6 disabilities with regards to identification

• 7 race/ethnicities with regards to 2 educational placements

• 7 race/ethnicities with regards to incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary placements

Requires districts, if identified as having significant disproportionality, to:

• Review and revise policies

• Publicly report on revisions to policies, practices, or procedures

• Use set-aside funds for comprehensive coordinated early intervening services

Applies a standard methodology to all states

4/12/2017

22

IDEA PBM PBMAS PL MSR SD RP SPED USDE

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Performance-Based MonitoringPerformance-Based Monitoring Analysis System Performance Level

Minimum Size RequirementsSignificant Disproportionality Reasonable Progress Special Education

U.S. Department of Education

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2017. All rights reserved. 64


PBMAS Before Final Regulations

USDE Final Regulations

10 Indicators Evaluating Placement, Discipline, and Representation

98 Indicators Evaluating Placement, Discipline, and Representation

Range of Performance Levels Pass/Fail Thresholds




Continuous Improvement Planning (if PL 3)

Financial penalty if any one of the 98 indicators’ threshold missed; must review, and if appropriate, revise policies, procedures, and practices; must publicly report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices

4/12/2017

23




If racial/ethnic group orcomparison group MSRs not met, then PL = Not Assigned.

If racial/ethnic group MSRs not met, then SD calculation not required. However, if comparison group MSRs not met, then Alternate Risk Ratio must be used to calculate SD.

All Students Comparison Other Students Comparison




Disproportionality Rate Risk Ratio/Alternate Risk Ratio

Required Improvement if Improvement from Prior Year to Current Year Sufficient in Relation to a Subsequent Year

Reasonable Progress Only if Improvement in EACH of TwoConsecutive Prior Years in Relation to Current Year




In representation indicators, exclusions were applied for Hospital Class, State Supported Living Centers, Residential Care and Treatment Facilities, and Regional School for the Deaf.

Still under review by TEA – we can only confirm today that court-ordered students placed in Residential Facilities or Group Homes can be excluded.

4/12/2017

24

Although the final regulations require a somewhat different approach, our transition to disproportionality rates was a step in the right direction and provided districts with multiple years of Report Only data they could use to anticipate, and potentially avoid, being identified for significant disproportionality once the USDE regulations were finalized.

Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2017. All rights reserved.

70

Representation Disability and Race/Ethnicity Areas:

1. Hispanic/Latino2. American Indian or

Alaska Native3. Asian4. Black or African American5. Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander6. White7. Two or More Races

1. AU2. ED3. OHI4. ID5. SI6. SLD

To address the federal regulations, we will need to make the following changes to the Representation Indicator:◦ Instead of assigning PLs based on the aggregated number of

students enrolled in special education, assign PLs based onthe disaggregated number of students enrolled in specialeducation based on race/ethnicity and disability category.◦ This disaggregation will result in 49 distinct measures of special

education representation.◦ Because this disaggregation will include disaggregating data on

African American and Hispanic students, we no longer need those two separate indicators.


4/12/2017

25

These 49 different measures will identify districts that exceed the threshold for a “disproportionate” level of students of a particular race/ethnicity or disability category served in special education.

States need to set thresholds for what is consideredsignificantly disproportionate and designate any district thatexceeds that threshold as having significant disproportionality.


Instead of:◦ a PL 0, 1, 2, or 3, the 2017 PBMAS Representation

Indicator will assign a PL of Significant Disproportionality (SD);◦ an “all students” comparison, the 2017 PBMAS

Representation Indicator will be based on an “all otherstudents” comparison;◦ assigning PL based on the disproportionality rate, SD PL

will be assigned based on a risk ratio.


Step 1: 70.6 – 27.5 = 43.1Step 2: 43.1/27.5*100 = 156.7The district’s Asian Representation Rate in SPED is 156.7% higher than the rate of Asian students in the district.


NUMERATORS DENOMINATORS

SPED Students All Students SD Year 1

Sample District’s Data 340 3,456

District Rate Asian SPED SPED Students

Asian SPED 70.6 240 340

Asian Students All Students

All Students 27.5 950 3,456DisproportionalityRate 156.7

4/12/2017

26

Step 1: 25.3/4.0 = 6.3The district’s Asian students are 6.3 times as likely as other students to be enrolledin SPED.



SPED Students All Students SD Year 1

Sample District’s Data 340 3,456

District Rate Asian SPED Asian Students

SPEDAsian

25.3 240 950

Other SPED Other StudentsOther Students 4.0 100 2,506

Risk Ratio 6.3

2 PlacementAreas

> 40% in Regular Class

% of students served in special education in separate placements

Step 1: 37.8 – 14.9 = 22.9Step 2: 22.9/14.9*100 = 153.7The district’s Asian Regular Class <40% Rate is 153.7% higher than the rate ofAllStudents in the district.



District Rate

Setting <40% SPED Students SD Year 1

All Students

14.9 321 2,154

Asian 37.8 31 82Disproportionality

Rate 153.7

4/12/2017

27

Step 1: 37.8/14.0 = 2.7The district’s Asian students are 2.7 times as likely as other students to be in the Regular Class <40%.



District Rate

Setting <40% SPED Students SD Year 1

Sample District’s Data

14.9 321 2,154

Asian 37.8 31 82

Other <40% Other SPEDOther Students 14.0 290 2,072

Risk Ratio 2.7

This indicator measures the percent of students ages 6-21 served in special education (SPED) in separate placements.

Calculation

number of students ages 6−21 served in special education and placed in instructional settings 30, 50, 60, 70, 71, 86, 87, 96 and 97

number of students ages 6−21 served in special education

Settings –30 (State Supported Living Centers)50 (Residential Nonpublic School Program) 60 (Nonpublic Day School)70 (Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired) 71 (Texas School for the Deaf)86(Residential Care and Treatment Facility – Separate Campus)87(Residential Care and Treatment Facility – Community Class) 96 (Off Home Campus – Separate Campus)97 (Off Home Campus – Community Class)


PBMAS currently has three discipline indicators thatevaluate the placement of students with disabilitiescompared to the placement of all students in:◦ Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEP)◦ In-School Suspension (ISS)◦ Out of School Suspension (OSS)

They will be discontinued beginning with the 2017 PBMAS, and 35 new discipline indicators will be developed as a result of the final regulations.


4/12/2017

28


Indicator Numbers Indicator Name

1 – 7 Out-of-School Suspensions and Expulsions ≤10 Days (for Seven Race/Ethnic Groups)

8 – 15 Out-of-School Suspensions and Expulsions >10 Days (for Seven Race/Ethnic Groups)

16 – 22 In-School Suspensions ≤10 Days (for Seven Race/Ethnic Groups)

23 – 29 In-School Suspensions >10 Days (for Seven Race/Ethnic Groups)

30 – 35 Total Disciplinary Removals, Including ISS, OSS, expulsions, removals by school personnel to an interim alternative education setting, and removals by a hearing officer(for Seven Race/Ethnic Groups)

We will be unable to develop the 35 indicators forinclusion in the 2017 PBMAS.

Instead, we plan to develop them for inclusion in the 2017 Discipline Data Validation Release, which typically occurs in November.

That release will identify:• SD Year 1 districts (based on 2015- 2016 data),• SD Year 2 districts (based on 2016-2017 data), and • SD Year 1 districts (based on 2016-2017 data).

All of those results will subsequently be incorporatedinto, and reported a second time, in the 2018 PBMAS.


Should we expect this?

Many districts and charters identified for significant disproportionality in multiple areas

4/12/2017

29

Or this?

A few districts/charters identified for significant disproportionality in one or more areas

TEA has a few options….

The federal regulations are very prescriptive. There are only four components where we have some degree of flexibility:

1. Consecutive Years2. Minimum Size Requirements3. Thresholds4. Reasonable Progress


States can decide whether the penalties kick in fordistricts based on one year, two years, or three years ofSD for a particular indicator.

Using just one year of SD is the most punitive option. Advantages of using multiple years of SD:◦ Less punitive to districts◦ Requires the SD to be identified beyond a single year◦ Allows certain districts to (potentially) receive the benefit of

Reasonable Progress, thereby avoiding the SD determination for a particular year

The maximum number of years available for the first roundof SD determinations is two: 2017 and 2018.


4/12/2017

30

What are minimum size requirements? (MSRs)

Why are MSRs important?

Where do states have the option to applyMSRs?◦ On the two numerators (N1 and N2)◦ On the two denominators (D1 and D2)


Minimum Size Requirements

• Per the federal regulations, if the race/ethnic group MSR (N1 or D1) not met, then the district is not evaluated for SD.

• However, if N1/D1 MSR are met but N2 or D2 MSR notmet, then the STATE N2 and D2 must be used to evaluatethe district for SD. This is called the Alternate Risk Ratio.

• The federal regulations state that N1/N2 MSR of 10 and D1/D2 MSR of 30 are “presumptively reasonable.”

The threshold refers to the risk ratio number that states will use to assign SD.

Any district that exceeds that threshold will be identified as SD (either Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, etc.)

If the state decides to implement Reasonable Progress (RP), a district may avoid the federal sanctions that would otherwise kick in (or continue) for a particular year - as long as it meets RP for all indicators where it exceeded the established thresholds.


4/12/2017

31

Thresholds - TEA modeling data for the Representation - Risk ratio 2.0



4/12/2017

32

For the Representation Indicator, states may set differentthreshold for different disability categories but may not setdifferent thresholds for different racial/ethnic groups.

States may also set different thresholds for the Placement Indicators and the Discipline Indicators – but again maynot set different thresholds for different racial/ethnicgroups.



Indicator Category Allowable Thresholds

Representation• (7 indicators – one for each race/ethnic

group)

1 threshold

Representation• (42 indicators – 6 disability categories x 7

race/ethnic groups)

Up to 6(1 for each disability category)

Placement• (7 <40% indicators – one for each

race/ethnic group)

1 threshold

Placement• (7 separate settings indicators – one for

each race/ethnic group)

1 threshold

Discipline• (35 indicators – 5 disciplinary removals x

7 race/ethnic groups)

Up to 5(1 for each type of disciplinary removal)

§300.647(d)(2): A State is not required to identify a district for significant disproportionality until…the district has exceeded the risk ratio threshold and has failed to demonstrate reasonable progress.

Reasonable Progress is lowering the risk ratio in each of twoconsecutive prior years.

The State does not have the option to postpone a finding of SD if the district has only achieved a decrease over a multiple year period.


4/12/2017

33

Example SD Year 1 SD Year 2 SD Year 3 RP?

District A 4.9 4.3 3.6 Yes

District B 4.9 3.6 4.3 No

• In this example, the risk ratio threshold is ≥3.0.• Both districts started at the same place two years ago (SD Year 1).• Both districts exceed the threshold in the current year (SD Year 3).• Both districts reduced their risk ratio between SD Year 1 and SD Year 3.• However, per federal regulations, District B does not get RP because

its ratio increased from 3.6 to 4.3 between SD Years 2 and 3.Copyright © Texas Education Agency 2017. All rights reserved.

97

More information, including a proposal for calculating Reasonable Progress, will be shared at a future time.

We believe our PBMAS Required Improvement calculation is a valid and meaningful calculation, and we will continue to explore how/if we can incorporate it into a Reasonable Progress calculation.

Based on the parameters of federal requirements, however, it is unlikely that as many districts will receive RP as typically receive RI in PBMAS.


By July 1, 2018,states must identify districts that

are subject to the federalsanctions (based on any one of

the 98 indicators).


4/12/2017

34

Options: A district that has SD for any of the 98 indicators

in 2018 is subject to the federal sanctions.

or

A district that has SD for the same indicator inboth* 2017 and 2018 and does not meetReasonable Progress is subject to the federal sanctions.

*After 2018, this option can include three years.



Red font indicates districts are under federal sanctions.

2017 PBMAS 2018 PBMAS

SD (Year 1) for 7 <40% indicators

SD (Year 1) for 7 Separate Settings indicators

SD (Year 1) for 49 Representation indicators

2017 PBM Discipline Data Validation

SD (Year 1) for 35 Discipline indicatorso 2015-2016 Data

SD (Year 2)o 2016-2017 Data

SD (Year 1)o 2016-2017 Data

SD (Year 2) for each of 98 indicators

RP (Year 2) for each of 98 indicators

SD (Year 1) for each of 98 indicators

Red font indicates districts are under federal sanctions.

DRAFT TIMELINE


2019 PBMAS 2020 PBMAS

SD (Year 3) = districts that exceed the threshold for three consecutive years and did not meet RP in 2019

RP (Year 3) = districts that exceeded the threshold for three consecutive years but met RP in 2019

SD (Year 1 and Year 2 )

SD (Year 3) and (Year 4) = districtsthat exceeded the threshold for three orfour consecutive years and did not meetRP in 2020

RP (Year 3 and Year 4) = districts that exceeded the threshold for three or four consecutive years but met RP in 2020

SD (Year 1 and Year 2)

Etc...

4/12/2017

35

Clearer Skies Ahead

• TAA from TEA • 2017 PBMAS Manual • More information to ESCs and from ESCs to YOU!

Ann Jinkins

Visible Learning for Mathematics:

What Works Best to Optimize Student Learning

John Hattie, Douglas Fisher, and Nancy Frey

with Linda M. Gojak, Sara Delano Moore,

and William Mellman

900+

meta‐analyses related to student achievement

4/12/2017

36

3

4/12/2017

37

Three Phase Model of Mathematics Learning

Transfer

Deep

Surface

Taxonomy of Tasks Based on Cognitive Demand

Doing Mathematics

Procedures with ConnectionsProcedures without

Connections

MemorizationPage 81

4/12/2017

38

A prompt? or a cue?

Page 93

PromptsType of Prompt Definition

Background knowledge

Reference to content that the student already knows…

Process or procedure

Reference to established or generally agreed‐uponrepresentation…

Reflective Promotion of metacognition…

Heuristic Engagement in an informal, self‐directed, problem‐solving procedure…

•Prompts are questions or statements used to remind students to leverage what they already know in order to think further

Page 95

CuesType of Cue Definition

Visual A range of graphic hints…

Verbal Variations in speech to draw attention to something specific…

Gestural Body movements or motions to draw attention…

Environmental Use of the classroom surroundings or physical objects…

•Cues are more overt attempts to draw attention to relevant information or a certain action needed to move forward.

Page 96

4/12/2017

39

The right support at the right time

Feedback for the Student: Adjusting Learning

Effect Size

0.75

Page 198

Feedback Strategies

•Timing

•Amount

•Mode

•Audience

Page 204

4/12/2017

40

Types of Feedback

•About the task•About the process

•Self‐regulatory•About self

Page 205

Chapter 7: Assessment, Feedback, and Meeting the Needs of All Learners

• Video 7.1. Continual Assessment for Precision Teaching p. 200

• Video 7.2. Feedback That Fosters Learning p. 205

• Video 7.3. Feedback That Fosters Perseverance p. 207

• Video 7.4. Growth Mindset: The Students’ Perspective p. 209

Comparing Direct and Dialogic Approaches

If the effect size for Classroom Discussion = 0.82

and

the effect size for Direct Instruction = 0.59

Should teachers prefer dialogic over direct

instruction?

Page 23

4/12/2017

41

Comparing Direct and Dialogic Approaches

No, Visible Learning research focuses on not only what works, but when it works.

Page 25

Precision teaching is about knowing what strategies to implement when for maximum impact.

Page 26

Page 116

4/12/2017

42

Direct Instruction, the Right Dose at the Right Time

Direct instruction is when the teacher decides:

• the learning intentions and success criteria,

• makes them transparent to the students,

• demonstrates them by modeling,

• evaluates if they understand what they have been told by checking for understanding,

• and re‐tells them what they have been told by tying it all together with closure.

Page 24

Who needs this information?

SELN Conference Discussion

4/12/2017

43

October11-13 or 18-20

WednesdayThursday

Friday

FREDERICKSBURG

MealsWednesday Dinner

Thursday LunchThursday & Friday Breakfast

ANNOUNCEMENTS

4/12/2017

44

LUNCH ON

YOUR OWN

special education leadership - esc13.net · special education leadership network ... staffing...

Documents