1 maryland’s children in special education with emotional disturbance: an overview of data and...

1

Maryland’s Children in Special Education with Emotional Disturbance: An Overview of Data and Current Outcomes

Dr. Carol Ann BaglinAssistant State Superintendent

Division of Special Education/Early Intervention ServicesApril 28, 2008

Meeting the Needs of Students with Emotional Disturbance in the School Setting

Place photo here

2

"All students come to school with unmet needs. Most students have the ability to delay these needs. Our children focus on

nothing else until these needs are met. Meet the needs early or consume your time fighting them. The choice is yours,

not theirs.” — Tobin, 1991

3

Emotional Disturbance: Defined

Emotional Disturbance as defined by IDEA:

"...a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree, that adversely affects a student’s educational performance:

(i) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory or health factors;

(ii) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal

relationships with peers and teachers;

(iii) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal

circumstances;(iv) A general, pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or

4

Emotional Disturbance: Defined

(v) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fear associated with personal or school problems.“

Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. Emotional disturbance does not include a student who is socially maladjusted unless it is determined that the student has an emotional disturbance.

[Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34 C.F.R., Section 300.8(c)(4)] [Code of Maryland Annotated Regulations, Section 13A.05.01.03]

5

Some Characteristics and Behaviors of Children with Emotional Disturbance

• Hyperactivity

• Aggression/self-injurious behavior

• Withdrawal

• Immaturity

• Learning difficulties

6

Let’s Look at the Data…

7

Maryland 2006 Data: Children with Emotional Disturbance by Gender

23.3

76.7

Males

Females

Data supplied by the Maryland Local School Systems 2006

8

National Data: Children with Emotional Disturbance by Ethnicity

1.5

1.1

11.2

28.6

57.4

Am. Ind.African Am.AsianWhiteHispanic

US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis Systems 2007

9

Maryland 2006 Data: Children with Emotional Disturbance by Ethnicity

0.5

0.6

2.7

56.1

40.1

Am. Ind.African Am.AsianWhiteHispanic

Data supplied by Maryland’s Local School System and produced by Optimal Solutions Group

10

Trend Data: Students with Emotional Disturbance in Maryland

2004-2006

Local School System

Total Children with Disabilities

Children with Emotional

Disturbance

Percentage Rate

Years 2004 2005 2006

2004 2005 2006

2004 2005 2006

Maryland 111,496 109,730 106,850

9,676 9,179 8,848

8.7 8.4 8.16

11

Students with Emotional Disturbance in Maryland 2006

Local School System

Total Children with

Disabilities


Disturbance

Percentage Rate

Maryland 103476 8448 8.16

Garrett 669 108 16.14

Baltimore City 13978 2021 14.45

Washington 2725 296 10.86

Charles 2238 216 9.65

Prince George’s 13840 1291 9.33

Baltimore Co. 13435 1243 9.25

12


Local School System Total Children with

Disabilities


Disturbance

Percentage Rate

Anne Arundel 8509 706 8.3

Frederick 4391 358 8.15

Dorchester 494 39 7.89

Allegany 1373 106 7.72

Carroll 3230 187 5.79

Harford 5349 297 5.55

13


Local School System

Total Children with

Disabilities


Disturbance

Percentage Rate

St. Mary’s 2202 116 5.27

Calvert 1936 99 5.11

Wicomico 1645 80 4.86

Howard 4456 216 4.85

Montgomery 16913 766 4.53

Kent 340 15 4.41

14


Local School System

Total Children with

Disabilities


Disturbance

Percentage Rate

Queen Anne’s 993 41 4.13

Caroline 669 27 4.04

Cecil 2289 87 3.8

Talbot 417 15 3.6

Somerset 422 12 2.84

Worcester 724 8 1.1

15

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Defined

LRE is an educational environment that meets the need of a student requiring special education and related services as set forth in the student’s IEP and which, to the maximum extent appropriate to the students needs, ensures that the student will be educated with nondisabled peers.

34 C.F.R. section 300.114-300.120

COMAR 13A.05.01.10

16

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Defined

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children that are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or the severity of the disability of a student is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services can not be achieved satisfactorily.

34 C.F.R. section 300.114-300.120

COMAR 13A.05.01.10

17

Continuum of Placements

18

LRE A, B and C for Maryland’s Students with Emotional Disturbance

Least Restrictive Environment Students with Emotional Percentage of Disturbance in LRE Students with

Setting Emotional

Disturbance in

LRE Setting

(A) INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION SETTING for 80% or more of the school day.

2886 32%

(B) INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION SETTING for 40% but not more than 79% of the school day.

1056 12%

(C) INSIDE GENERAL EDUCATION SETTING less than 40% of the school day.

2320 26%

19

Students with Emotional Disturbance in Public and Private Educational Placements 2006

Local SchoolSystem

TotalPercentage

Rate

Public Placement

Non-Public Placement

Maryland 8.16 6135 72.6 2215 26.2

Garrett 16.14 100 92.6 8 7.4

BaltimoreCity

14.45 1748 86.5 273 13.5

Washington 10.86 180 60.8 116 39.2

Charles 9.65 179 82.3 37 17.1

PrinceGeorge’s

9.33 728 56.4 563 43.6

BaltimoreCounty

9.25 782 62.7 461 37.1

Number Number PercentagePercentage

20


Local SchoolSystem

TotalPercentage

Rate

Public Placement


Anne Arundel

8.3 578 81.9 128 18.1

Frederick 8.15 283 79.1 75 20.9

Dorchester 7.89 36 92.3 3 7.7

Allegany 7.72 64 60.4 42 39.6

Carroll 5.79 117 62.6 70 37.4

Harford 5.55 190 64 107 36

21


Local School System

Total Percentage

Rate

Public Placement Non-Public Placement

St. Mary’s 5.27 102 87.9 14 12.1

Calvert 5.11 90 90.9 9 9.1

Wicomico 4.86 74 92.5 6 7.5

Howard 4.85 184 85.2 32 14.8

Montgomery 4.53 555 72.5 211 27.5

Kent 4.41 14 93.3 1 6.7

NumberPercentage PercentageNumber

22


Local SchoolSystem

TotalPercentage

Rate

Public Placement


Queen Anne’s 4.13 36 87.8 5 12.2

Caroline 4.04 26 96.3 1 3.7

Cecil 3.8 35 40.2 52 59.8

Talbot 3.6 14 93.3 1 6.7

Somerset 2.84 12 100 0 0

Worcester 1.1 8 100 0 0

23

Students with Emotional Disturbance In Public/Private Day and Residential Placements

Local School Systems

Public Separate Day School

Private Separate Day School

Public Residential

Private Residential

Maryland 561 1,821 21 45

Allegany 1 42 0 2

Anne Arundel 56 104 1 3

Baltimore City 183 409 1 4

Baltimore County 74 243 0 0

Calvert 12 5 0 0

Caroline 0 0 0 3

Carroll 1 55 0 0

Cecil 0 39 0 0

Charles 10 24 0 0

Dorchester 0 2 1 1

Frederick 4 50 0 0

Garrett 0 6 0 0

24


Local School Systems

Public Separate Day School


Public Residential

Private Residential

Harford 2 64 5 1

Howard 2 17 3 1

Kent 0 0 0 1

Montgomery 153 190 0 2

Prince George's 53 463 9 20

Queen Anne's 0 5 0 1

St. Mary's 2 6 0 3

25


Local School SystemsPublic Separate Day School


Public Residential

Private Residential

Somerset 2 0 0 0

Talbot 0 1 0 0

Washington 5 95 0 2

Wicomico 1 1 1 0

Worcester 0 0 0 1

26

Nonpublic Schools Expenditures for the 2006-2007 School Year

•The total Tuition and Services expenditure to fund students with disabilities in day and residential nonpublic placements was $212,790,968

•The LSS Share of the Total was $113,453,662

•The MDSE Share of the Total was $99,337,307

27

Students with Emotional Disturbance in Nonpublic Placements for the 2006-2007 School Year

•5,361 placements funded

•2,439 were students in private separate day or private residential placements

•22 of the 24 LSSs placed students in nonpublic programs

•Total cost of serving students was $93,583,288

28

State Performance PlanIndicator 3: Participation and Performance of Children

with Disabilities on Statewide AssessmentsIndicator 3 consists of three sub-indicators 3A, 3B and 3C. •3A - Percent of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup.

•3B - Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate assessment against alternate achievement standards.

•3C - Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement standards.

29

Indicator 3: Annual Targets for Reading and Math in Tested Grades

Mathematics Reading

Grade Level Baseline2005

06 AMO Target

(07)

Actual Data

2007[1]

Baseline2005

06

AMO Target

(07)

Actual Data2007

3 51.2 53.0 66.53 54.97 52.7 57.5 61.82 62.50

4 48.8 54.9 66.33 62.63 57.1 58.5 72.05 67.30

5 38.8 41.9 58.89 51.59 46.6 48.9 66.59 52.97

6 25.7 30.9 51.84 40.46 36.1 36.9 68.50 47.15

7 22.6 26.6 49.81 30.58 32.2 36.3 66.75 36.88

8 21.7 23.3 48.45 27.22 31.3 30.8 63.73 35.22

Grade 10/ End of Course

23.4Algebra Data

Analysis

31.0 38.60 37.33 22.3English 2

26.1 52.17 36.45

30

Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 Reading MSA Data

Grades 3-5

37.3

57.8

78.3

50

59.3

81

52.9 49.1

75.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

MD Students with ED

MD SWD

MD ALL

31

Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 Math MSA Data Grades 3-5

44.8

52.7

79.3

43.8

55.1

82.3

47.6

41.4

73.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


MD Students with ED

MD SWD

MD ALL

32

Indicator 3 Preliminary

2006 Reading MSA Data Grades 6-8

44.8 44.4

71.3

37.5 32.2

70.2

30.230.1

66.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


MD Students with ED

MD SWD

MD ALL

33

Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 Math MSA Data Grades 6-8

19.7

28.8

65.4

18.4

23.1

61.2

13.8

18.7

56.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


MD Students with ED

MD SWD

MD ALL

34

Indicator 3 Preliminary 2006 English 2 and Algebra/ Data Analysis HSA Data

31.8

19.3

60.2

32.9

27.2

64.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

English 2 Algebra

MD Students with ED

MD SWD

MD ALL

35

State Performance PlanIndicator 4: Rates of Suspension and Expulsion

• A. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year; and

• TARGET 2007: No More than 4 or 16. 67% of the LSS show a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with disabilities compared with all nondisabled students.

• B. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.

• TARGET 2007: No More than 4 or 16. 67% of the LSS show a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions greater than 10 days for all students with disabilities by race/ethnicity compared with all nondisabled students of the same race and ethnicity.

36

2006 Data: Suspensions of Students with Emotional Disturbance

Of Maryland’s Special Education subgroup

8.16% have an Emotional Disturbance

52 % of the Special Education Subgroup suspended have an Emotional Disturbance

37

State Performance PlanIndicator 1: Graduation RateIndicator 2: Drop Out Rate

• Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduation from high school with a regular diploma compared to percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.

• TARGET 2007: 83.24%

• Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth in the State dropping out of high school.

• TARGET 2007: 3.54% or LESS

As Reported in SPP/APR February 2007

38

Graduation and Drop Out Rate for Students with Emotional Disturbance

45

55

4

78

4

85

4654

5

75

4

85

4951

5

77

3

86

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004 2005 2006

ED Drop Out Rate

ED Graduation Rate

SWD Drop Out Rate

SWD Graduation Rate

General Education Drop outRateGeneral Education GraduationRate

Per

cent

age

Rat

e fo

r G

radu

ates

& S

tude

nts

Opt

ing

to D

rop

Out

Graduation Year

39

Educational Implications

Educational Programs need to include:

• The educational programs for students with emotional disturbance need to include attention to mastering academics, developing social skills, and increasing self-awareness, self-esteem, and self-control.

• Behavior modification is one of the most widely used approaches to helping children who are emotional disturbed. However, there are many other techniques that are also successful and may be used in combination with behavior modification. Life Space Intervention and Conflict Resolution are two such techniques.

• There is growing recognition that families, as well as their children, need support, respite care, intensive case management services, and multi-agency treatment plan. Many communities are working toward providing these wrap-around services, and there are a growing number of agencies and organizations actively involved in establishing support services in the community.

40

Educational Implications (Continued)• Special programs usually attempt to provide a therapeutic

milieu, a structured environment where students experience a high degree of success; rules and routines are predictable; and students are consistently rewarded for appropriate behavior.

• Behavior management techniques, such as positive reinforcement, token economies, contracting, and time-out, which rely on direct measurement and monitoring of behavioral change, are commonly used in emotional disturbed programs.

• The assessment and systematic teaching of social skills through modeling, discussion, and rehearsal are frequently used to help students increase control over their behavior and improve their relations with others.

• Supportive therapies involving music, art, exercise, and relaxation techniques, as well as affective education, individual, and group counseling can be employed to improve self-understanding, self-esteem, and self-control.

41

Research-based Interventions in Maryland

• Supporting Social and Emotional Development in Young Children (CSEFEL)

• The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Project

• Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

• US Department of Health & Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

42

Supporting Social and Emotional Development in Young Children (CSEFEL)

• MD is one of three States initially chosen by CSEFEL MD is one of three States initially chosen by CSEFEL to participate in a three year to participate in a three year initiative to enhance the State’s capacity to strengthen social and emotional development of young children

• Broad goal: Build a consistent , evidence-based professional development framework for the early care and education workforce

43

Maryland/CSEFEL Partnership

• CSEFEL Role: To provide training and technical assistance on the Pyramid Model for Supporting Social Emotional Competence to State team, demonstration sites, trainers, and coaches

• State Role: To plan and coordinate the initial implementation of Pyramid Model in Maryland

44

Maryland/CSEFEL Partnership:Outcomes

• Increasing ECE provider competence and confidence in supporting social and emotional development of young children

• Creating cadre of trainers and coaches

• Demonstration of evidence-based practices

• Sustaining the effort

• GOOD CHILD OUTCOMES!

45

The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) Consultation Project

• Goals of the Project:

• Prevention and intervention services to children and families

• Identification and referrals for children with developmental, socio-emotional, or behavioral concerns

• Support to child care programs to provide stress-free learning environments

• Coordination of services with public schools, health departments, and other core service providers

46


Data of the Project Pilot Sites

•Early Intervention Project (EIP) operates in Baltimore City by the Baltimore City Child Care Resource Center.

• A child-focused program model delivered by early-childhood trained interventionists with increase commitment to referred students over the two year implementation time line.

•Project Right Steps serves the five-county region of the Eastern Shore by Chesapeake College, through the Child Care Resource & Referral Center.

• A child-focused model to support changes in the child’s behavior through work with both the child care provider and the family.

47


• Expansion of the pilot projects to 13 sites statewide encompassing all regions of the state

• State-funded grant program is coordinated by the Division of Early Childhood Development within MSDE

48

The Maryland Early Childhood Mental Health (ECMH) Consultation Project Early Intervention Project (EIP)

Student Improvements on EIP Behavior Scales n=42

% Improved

Decreased Total Behavior Problems 69%

Decreased Externalizing 71%

Decreased Internalizing 67%

Improved Social Skills 76%

Early Intervention Project (EIP) operated in Baltimore City by the Baltimore City Child Care Resource Center.

49


Behavioral Changes % Improved

Improved Social Emotional 82%

Increased Competence 82%

Decreased Problem Scores 92%

Decreased Total Behavior Problems 53%

Decreased Externalizing 45%

Decreased Internalizing 66%

Improved Social Skills 71%

Right Steps Project serves the 5 county region of the Eastern Shore by Chesapeake College, through the Child Care Resource & Referral Center.

50

Positive Behavioral Interventions and

Supports

Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for

All Students,Staff, & Settings

Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior

Tertiary Prevention:Specialized IndividualizedSystems for Students with

High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5% CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE

INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

SUPPORT

51

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PBIS Implementing Schools

51%

29%

10%

3%

2%

1%

4%

Elementary

Middle

High

ES/MS

MS/HS

ES/MS/HS

Other

School Type # of Schools

Elementary 255

Middle 145

High 50

ES/MS 14

MS/HS 8

ES/MS/HS 4

Other 18

TotalImplementing 494

52

PBIS In Maryland Public Schools

• Are schools implementing school–wide Positive Behavior Support?

53

East Baltimore Mental Health Partnership, Baltimore, Maryland

• East Baltimore Partnership was developed in 1993 by a coalition of leaders, including representatives from city agencies; state departments; and other private and public entities:

• Johns Hopkins University

• University of Maryland

• Families Involved Together

• Alliance for the Mentally Ill

54

The Maryland State Department of Education and Division of Special Education/Early Intervention

Services: NEW Initiatives

• $300,000 in grants to local school systems (LSS) to fund research and best practices to connect students of adoption and their families to support systems.

• $1 Million in grants to LSS to provide research-based interventions to improve the outcomes for students with Emotional Disturbance and increase student achievement.

55

What Are the Important Components within the School Setting?

When behaviors impede learning (including the learning of others), the IEP must include strategies to address that behavior.

• Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

• Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)

• Families need support, respite care, intensive case management, and a collaborative, multi-agency approach to services.

56

Promoting Academic Success

• Children with emotional and behavioral problems like their classmates, learn best in classrooms characterized by effective instruction and behavior management routines.

• Educators take into account the strengths and needs of all their students when designing effective learning opportunities.

• Task Difficulty

• Lesson Presentation

• Motivational Strategies

• Work Assignments

• Involving Other

Ideas That Work, Office of Special Education

57

"All students come to school with unmet needs. Most students have the ability to delay these needs. Our children focus on nothing else until these needs are met. Meet the needs early or consume your time fighting them. The choice is yours, not theirs."— Tobin, 1991

1 maryland’s children in special education with emotional disturbance: an overview of data and...

Documents

maryland local school

marylands children

needs of students

behaviors of children

school problems

marylands local school

national data

trend data