IDEA Partnership State State Meeting March 20 21, 2006

1
IDEA PartnershipState State Meeting March 20
-21, 2006

• Connecting to Data and strategies
• Using Quantitative Data
• Fredric DeMay

2
Who is Fred DeMay?

• 35 Years in the Field of Special Education
• 25 Years with the New York State Education
  Department
• Coordinator for Program Development and Special
  Education Policy
• SIG Director
• Helped develop NYs TA infrastructure for General
  and Special Education

3
Using Quantitative Data to Guide IDEA
Partnership Activities

• Connections to OSEP SPP indicators
• Alignment with State Performance Plans
• Creating a Value-Added component of partnership
  relationships
• Getting to Win-Win

4
A quick reality check

• HMOY are familiar with the 20 (14 LEA) OSEP
  indicators that drive the SPP/APR?
• HMOY have a copy of your States SPP?
• HMOY are familiar with your States baseline
  data?
• HMOY are familiar with your States Measurable
  and Rigorous Targets for each indicator?

5
A quick reality check

• HMOY are aware of the Activities/ Timelines/ and
  Resources included in the SPP to achieve those
  targets?
• HMOY had significant input into your States SPP?
• HMOY were directly involved in the development of
  your States SPP?
• HMOY can explain the difference between the SPP
  and APR?

6
State Performance Plan (SPP)

• 6-year plan
• 3 priority areas
• 20 indicators
• Measurable and rigorous targets
• Improvement strategies

7
SPP Content

• For each indicator
• Overview of the System or Process
• Baseline data and discussion
• Measurable and Rigorous Targets
• Improvement Activities /Timelines /Resources
• How Stakeholder Input Obtained
• Public Dissemination Plan

8
Annual Performance Reports (APR)

• Valid and reliable information
• Annual reports to USDOE on the performance of the
  State on the SPP
• State reports annually to the public on the
  performance of each LEA Program in the State on
  the targets in the SPP

9
APR Content

• Actual performance against the targets
• Improvement activities completed
• Explanation of progress or slippage
• Any revisions to approved targets, improvement
  activities, timelines or resources with
  justifications
• Public reporting plan

10
Monitoring Priority Areas

• FAPE in the LRE
• Disproportionality
• Effective General Supervision

11
Indicators FAPE in the LRE

• Graduation rate
• Drop out rate
• Participation and Performance on Statewide
  Assessments
• Rates of Suspension and Expulsion
• Least Restrictive Environment placementsschool
  age
• LRE - preschool
• Preschool Outcomes (improved social-emotional,
  knowledge and skills, behaviors)
• School facilitation of parent involvement

12
Indicators Disproportionality

• Disproportionate representation of racial and
  ethnic groups in special education that is the
  result of inappropriate identification
• Disproportionate representation of racial and
  ethnic groups in specific disability categories
  that is the result of inappropriate identification

13
Indicators General Supervision

• Evaluations and eligibility determinations within
  60 days
• Children referred from EI with IEPs implemented
  by their 3rd birthdays
• Youth with appropriate IEPs relating to
  transition services
• Youth employed or in post secondary school within
  one year after leaving high school

14
General Supervision Responsibility (State
reporting only)

• Compliance corrected within one year of
  identification
• Complaints resolved within 60 day timeline
• Impartial hearings adjudicated within 45 days
• Hearing requests resolved in resolution sessions
• Mediations resulting in mediation agreements
• State data and reports timely and accurate

15
Federal Monitoring

• The Secretary shall monitor the States
• using quantifiable indicators in each of the
  priority areas, and
• using such qualitative indicators as are needed
  to adequately measure performance.

16
State Monitoring

• The Secretary shall require States to -
• Monitor implementation of this part by local
  education agencies
• Enforce this part in accordance with IDEA
  monitoring priorities and enforcement actions

17
Enforcement

• Needs assistance 2 consecutive years
• Technical assistance
• Direct use of funds
• Impose conditions on use of funds
• Needs intervention 3 or more consecutive years
• Corrective action plan or improvement plan
• Withhold/recover funds
• Needs substantial intervention at any time
• Recover/withhold funds
• Judicial referral

18
and the point is.

• The complexity and depth of the SPP took many
  States by surprise.
• In some cases the infrastructure may not exist to
  leverage change in the indicator areas.
• The SPP may drive some States to emphasize
  increased monitoring or other punitive compliance
  strategies as a fallback position, particularly
  with annual public data-reporting requirements.

19
and the point is.

• It is probable that the SPP will dominate the
  attention and resources of SEAs.
• Activities, projects and programs that are not
  directly linked to SPPs (although potentially
  valuable), are not likely to be supported.
• SEAs may not yet have a clear set of strategies
  defined.
• The unintended consequence of weakening
  collaborative efforts is possible.

20
and the point is.

• Any Partnership initiative should be integrated
  into the SPP and demonstrated to support the
  States improvement efforts.

21
Case Study - NYS

• IDEA Monitoring Priority FAPE in the LRE
• Indicator 1 of youth with IEPs graduating
  from HS with a regular diploma compared to all
  students

22
Case Study - NYS

• Baseline data 55 (1998 cohort) and 58 (1999
  cohort) of SWD graduated with a regular diploma
  within 4 years compared to 77 of all students.

23
Measurable and Rigorous Targets

• 2005-06 59 grad rate
• 2006-70 60 grad rate
• 2007-08 61 grad rate
• 2008-09 62 grad rate
• 2009-10 63 grad rate
• 2010-11 64 grad rate

• Less than 18 point gap
• Less than 17 point gap
• Less than 17 point gap
• Less than 16 point gap
• Less than 16 point gap
• Less than 15 point gap

24
Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

• Conduct focused Exiting/Transition monitoring
  reviews of districts with graduation rates below
  State targets
• Conduct focused monitoring reviews of BOCES to
  review student access to general curriculum

• Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA)
  Regional Offices, SETRC, RSSCs
• Special Education Quality Assurance (SEQA)
  Regional Offices, SETRC, RSSCs

25
Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

• Partner with other State Agencies to leverage
  local and State interagency funding to implement
  school-based collaborative efforts to improve
  results for students with disabilities
• Use a data-driven strategic planning model to
  develop annual improvement plans with Big Four
  Cities

• Task Force on School and Community Collaboration
• Urban Initiative

26
Sample Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources

• Promote implementation of Positive Behavioral
  Intervention and Supports (PBIS) in school
  districts with graduation rates below the State
  target
• Increase participation in CTE programs
• Support Preservice teacher preparation programs
  to enhance skills of general and special
  education teachers

• PBIS project in collaboration with SED, OMH, DOH,
  Families Together of NYS
• Regents policy development and various TA
  programs
• Numerous provider shortage and IHE initiatives
  including SIG

27
Connections and AlignmentThe Emerging Role of
the IDEA Partnership

• At the State Level help define primary
  strategies partners will use to improve
  graduation rate.
• Research and Analysis Why does the gap exist?
  What are the key factors that contribute to the
  high dropout rates and low graduation rates for
  SWD? What are the policy implications for
  legislation, Board of Regents, Regulations, local
  policy? Are there areas in the country or State
  where the gap does not exist? If so, why? What
  worked? How can partners work with SED and LEAs
  to move best practices to the field?
• What can National and State partners do
  specifically to support SED efforts as outlined
  in the SPP?
• What are the most critical needs (from SPP) that
  individual partners can assist with (value-added)?

28
Connections and AlignmentThe Emerging Role of
the IDEA Partnership

• At the Regional or Intermediate level (County,
  BOCES, major city) engage directly with
  regional TA and school improvement efforts to
  support and enhance school improvement
  strategies.
• How are regional TA initiatives addressing
  graduation rate gaps?
• What role does or can the partner organizations
  play in improving graduation rates?
• What are the expected outcomes from the partners
  participation?
• What data will be needed to document outcomes?

29
Connections and AlignmentThe Emerging Role of
the IDEA Partnership

• At the LEA level engage directly with
  individual districts and schools to address
  specific graduation gap issues.
• What role does or can the partner organization
  play in improving graduation rates?
• What are the expected outcomes from the partners
  participation?
• What data will be needed to document outcomes?

30
Lets explore how this can play out

• The NY IDEA Partnership experience

31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
What does Value-Added mean?

• Every partner plays a key role in supporting
  improvement efforts.
• That role is defined in context with the States
  Performance Plan.
• That role may have multiple dimensions.
• That role has measurable impact.
• That role continually contributes to positive
  progress.

34
Getting to Win - Win

• SEAs win because they cant do this on their own,
• Partners win because they have a clearly defined
  role that contributes to improved results,
• Schools win because they have additional
  resources through partners, and most importantly
• Students win if the SPP has the intended impact.