students with disabilities in the p-16 framework :
Post on 01-Jan-2016
19 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Students with Disabilities in Students with Disabilities in the P-16 Frameworkthe P-16 Framework::
Outcomes and Improvement Outcomes and Improvement StrategiesStrategies
Dr. Rebecca CortDr. Rebecca CortDeputy Commissioner: VESIDDeputy Commissioner: VESID
NY State Education DepartmentNY State Education Department
4 4 QuestionsQuestions*:*:
Where do we want to be?Where do we want to be? Why do we want to be there?Why do we want to be there? Where are we now?Where are we now? How are we going to get there?How are we going to get there?
*Roger Saland, CEO of PlugPower*Roger Saland, CEO of PlugPower
Where do we want to be?Where do we want to be?
High expectations for all individuals with High expectations for all individuals with disabilities.disabilities.
Full access to education and employment Full access to education and employment opportunitiesopportunities
Supports and services necessary to benefit Supports and services necessary to benefit from that accessfrom that access
Successful completion of high school and Successful completion of high school and college, employment, independence.college, employment, independence.
GOALS:
1. Close the great divide in achievement along lines of income, race and ethnicity, language and disability.
2. Keep up with growing demands for still more knowledge and skill in the face of increasing competition in a changing global economy
Source: Commissioner Mills Report to the Board of Regents, October 2006
Why do we want to be there?Why do we want to be there?
Moral imperativeMoral imperative
Constitutional and statutory rightConstitutional and statutory right
Economic necessityEconomic necessity
We’re Making ProgressWe’re Making Progress
Achievement is up in Grades 3-8 in English Language Arts and Mathematics
Few students are educated in Separate Settings
More take and Pass Regents exams every year
More graduate every year
More earn Regents diplomas
More attend college than a decade ago
But Achievement and Graduation But Achievement and Graduation Rates Remain Far Too LowRates Remain Far Too Low
Too few students with disabilities are in general education settings in the Big Five Cities.
Achievement in Grades 3-8 is a fraction of what it should be.
Successful outcomes (graduation) are too low.
Too many students are being lost.
Race/Ethnicity of All School-Age Students Compared to Race/Ethnicity of School-Age Students with Disabilities
55.4
%
18.8
%
18.7
%
6.6%
0.4%
52.7
%
23.2
%
21.0
%
2.5%
0.6%
White Black Hispanic Asian AmericanIndian
All Students Students with Disabilities
Source: 2005-06 BEDS Data and December 1, 2005 PD1/4, Final: April 2007
All minorities are over represented in special education except Asians, who are significantly underrepresented.
Final: June 2007
Much larger percentages of students with disabilities are provided specialeducation services in separate classes and in separate settings in the Big Five
Cities, compared to rest of State.
2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA): Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4• Performance of students with disabilities meeting the ELA learning
standards increased at every grade in 2007, even with the increase in ELL students with disabilities tested.
• Overall, 1 in 5 students with disabilities performs at grade level.
• Gap: Compare the 22.8% average for students with disabilities across grades 3-8 with that for all students in grades 3-8 at 63.4%.
2006 and 2007 English Language Arts (ELA)Students with Disabilities English Language Learners
Percentages at Levels 3 & 4
13
.1%
10
.3%
9.6
%
4.1
%
3.2
%
1.1
%
6.5
%14
.1%
11
.0%
9.8
%
5.0
%
3.6
%
2.5
%
8.4
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 ELL SWD (n=12,482) 2007 ELL SWD (n=18,952)
• Performance of students with disabilities (SWD) who are English Language Learners (ELL) meeting the ELA learning standards increased at every grade in 2007, but the increases are very low.
• Overall, 1 in 12 students with disabilities who are English Language Learner performs at grade level.
• Gap: Students with disabilities in grades 3-8 who were not English Language Learners were 3 times as likely to meet the standards than students with disabilities who are English Language Learners.
2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA): Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1
• In every grade, fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems.
• Gap: Compare the averages across grades 3-8 for students with disabilities at 25.1% with that for all students in grades 3-8 at 6.1%.
• Except in the Large City Districts, more students with disabilities met the standards in 2007.
• Gap: Variations among need/resource categories were substantial.
2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories:
Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4
• The percentage of students with disabilities in serious academic difficulties decreased in every category.
• Gap: Students in Large City Districts were 4 times as likely as those in Low Need Districts to score at Level 1.
2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories:
Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1
9,7678,424
7,226
8,305
5,675
6,790
2,832
4,9694,154
2,499
13,07912,144
9,68011,194
8,60610,461
4,175
7,545
9,514
3,414
20,08118,949
16,30914,101
17,321
15,366
13,51812,607
5,6474,419
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Number with Score of 65-100Number with Score of 55-100Number Tested
• Since 1997, there has been more than 354% increase in the number of students with disabilities tested.
• Of the students tested in 2006, 65% achieved a score between 55-100.
Regents English Examination and Students with Disabilities
Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final April 2007
Regents Diplomas Earned by Students with Disabilities
526
623
774
1,11
5
1,32
9
1,83
9
2,25
7
2,86
5
864
4,67
3 5,36
6
Total State
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-032003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Public Schools-Including Charter Schools
Students graduating with Regents diplomas in 2004-05 were required to pass five Regents examinations compared to eight being required in previous years.
• Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, more than 10 times as many students with disabilities are earning Regents diplomas.
Student Group Cohort
Enrollment
Regents/
Local Diploma
IEP Diploma & Other
Still Enrolled
Transfer
to GED
Dropout
2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years
All Students 214,494 64.2% 1.8% 18.4% 4.8% 10.9%
Gen.Ed. Students
187,792 68.0% 0.0% 17.7% 4.5% 9.7%
Students with Disabilities
26,702 37.3% 14.4% 22.8% 6.6% 18.9%
2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years
All Students 212,135 72.3% 2.4% 5.1% 1.4% 18.9%
Gen. Ed. Students
185,854 76.4% 0.1% 4.7% 1.2% 17.5%
Students with Disabilities
26,281 42.8% 18.8% 7.3% 2.4% 28.6%
2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years
All Students 216,910 66.7% 2.0% 15.8% 1.4% 14.2%
Gen. Ed. Students
189,457 70.9% 0.1% 14.7% 1.3% 13.0%
Students with Disabilities
27,453 37.5% 14.8% 23.1% 2.6% 21.9%
High School Outcomes for 2001 and 2002 Total Cohorts
Final: June 2007
Outcomes for 2001 Total Cohort of Students with Disabilities After 5 Years by Need/Resource Capacity
Total State Includes Charter Schools, Final- April 2007
• More students in the Big Five Cities dropped out than graduated.
• Gap: There are substantial variations in outcomes by need/resource capacity of school districts.
28,174 30,593
34,04136,060
37,793 38,02740,587 40,275
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The number of self-identified students with disabilities in New York State higher education programs decreased slightly after many years of steady increase.
2.8%3.0%
3.3%
Number of Individuals with Disabilities and Percent of Total Enrollment in NYS Institutions of Higher Education*
*Data for 1998 are not available
Source: OHE
3.4% 3.4%
3.6%
Final: April 2007
3.4%3.5%
Facing today’s educational challenges means improving critical systems and structures that support achievement from the earliest years though college completion.
Source: Commissioner Mills Report to the Board of Regents, October 2006
Action 1 Identify Low Performing Schools & Target
Improvements
• Set annual State targets for improvement
• Publish performance data
• Hold low-performing schools accountable
• Redirect IDEA funds in low-performing schools
• Provide Quality Indicator protocols
Action 2Help Districts Improve Instructional Practices
• Identify instructional practices contributing to poor student performance and help districts make improvements
• Describe and promote effective practices through district-to-district assistance
– Improved literacy
– Positive behavioral interventions
– Effective special education service delivery
Contracts for Excellence: Targets
• Predominantly benefit students with greatest educational needs– English language learners & limited English proficiency
– Students in poverty
– Students with disabilities
• Schools identified as requiring academic progress, corrective action or restructuring with emphasis on the most serious academic problems
• For evidence-based practices that facilitate student attainment of learning standards
Contracts for Excellence: Allowable Activities
• Class size reduction
• Increased time on task
• Teacher and Principal quality initiatives
• Middle and High School restructuring
• Full-day pre-kindergarten and kindergarten
• With prior SED approval, up to 15% for experimental programs to improve student achievement
Action 3Align VESID Technical Assistance Resources
• Direct technical assistance (TA) resources to address school improvements in:
– Literacy
– Behavioral supports
– Quality delivery of special education services
• Improve achievement and reduce disproportionate representation of minority students by:
– Preventing inappropriate referrals
– Increasing declassification rates
• Expand availability and capacity of TA centers to promote training and implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in the Large 4 and BOCES
Action 4Increase Positive Post School Outcomes
• Increase the number of students with disabilities transitioning directly from high schools to:– vocational rehabilitation training programs– employment– college
• 60 Model Transition Program (MTP) Projects
• CUNY MOU
Key Actions
• Direct TA resources to IDEA-identified districts
• Contracts for Excellence prioritize students in greatest need, including students with disabilities
• Focus TA on improving core instructional practices
• Identify successful schools
• Establish statewide Response to Intervention (RtI) Technical Assistance Center (TAC)
• Provide grants to districts to implement RtI programs
• Explore the development of Career and Technology Education (CTE) program options for students with disabilities to decrease dropout rates
Response to Intervention (RtI) §100.2(ii)
• Minimum requirements– Appropriate instruction in general education class– Screenings– Levels of targeted intervention– Repeated assessments – Application of information to make educational
decisions– Written notification to parents
• School selects structure and components
• Ensure fidelity of implementation
Learning Disabilities
• If you use the RtI process, you still must conduct a complete individual evaluation
• May not rely on any single procedure
• Must include observation of student’s academic performance in the regular classroom
• Determine that learning problems are NOT the result of lack of appropriate instruction in math and reading
Use of Significant Discrepancy regarding Learning Disabilities
• State does not prohibit its use
• Except that effective on or after July 1, 2012 (5 years), a school district shall not use the severe discrepancy criteria for:
– LD determination
– in reading
– in grades K-4
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Intent is to design individualized instruction
With sufficient supports and services to
Enable student to receive educational benefit
Rowley Standard
U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) defined two-pronged test
Used to determine if IEP appropriately developedDoes IEP meet procedural compliance?Was IEP reasonably calculated to enable child
to receive educational benefit?
Reasonable Calculation Based on procedural requirements of IDEA 2004 IEP identifies needs related to:
Child’s disability Involvement & progress in general curriculum
Annual Goals established in each need area Services planned to support:
Progress toward all goals Progress in general curriculum Participation in extracurricular & other nonacademic activities Education with disabled & nondisabled children
Child’s IEP adjusted if progress not made and/or to address anticipated needs
Educational Benefit
Can be measured in a variety of waysAchieving passing marksAdvancing from grade to gradeMaking progress toward meeting annual goals Improving scores on statewide/district wide
assessments & alternate assessment measuresGraduating with a regular diploma Passing High School exit exams such as Regents and
RCT
Educational Benefit Activity(EBA)
Determine whether design of IEP is reasonably calculated for student to receive educational benefit
Components Reviewing IEP documentation and annual goals progress for a
3-year cycle
Analyzing the relationship among needs, annual goals, and services
Comparing progress across consecutive IEPs
Looking for patterns in IEP development process
Determining if IEP was reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit
Focused Review(FR)
Preliminary activity in Focused Review process
Coordinated with other key FR ActivitiesReview of District/Building DataClassroom/Program VisitationsStaff Interviews
Scope and Focus
What does this mean for SEQA and SETRC?
Access to a comprehensive bank of information which should be used to identify the compliance Focus Areas and which components of the Quality Indicator Assessment and Resource Guides to use.
Implementing IDEA 2004Implementing IDEA 2004::
Highlights of 2007 Changes to NYS Highlights of 2007 Changes to NYS Special Education Laws and Special Education Laws and
RegulationsRegulations
Status of Conforming Law and Regulation
• Chapter 378 of the Laws of 2007– Retroactive effective date of 6/30/07
– 2 year sunset
• Amendments to Parts 100, 120, 200 and 201 of the Commissioner’s Regulations– Some adopted effective 2007
– Additional revised amendments discussed May 2008 to be approved by Regents in July 2008
10 Policy Areas Affected
1. Referrals
2. Evaluations
3. Eligibility
4. CSE Members
5. IEPs
6. Continuum
7. Due Process
8. Discipline
9. Parentally Placed
10.Charter Schools
ReferencesReferences & Links & Links P-16 Education: A Plan for Action
http://usny.nysed.gov/summit/p-16ed.pdf
Report to the Board of Regents on Closing the Achievement Gap: Strategies for Students with Disabilities Implemented in 2007-2008 http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2008Meetings/May2008/0508vesidd3.htmhttp://www.regents.nysed.gov/2008Meetings/May2008/0508vesidd3.htm
Results for Students and Individuals with Disabilities in 2005-06 and 2006-07 http://www.regents.nysed.gov/2007Meetings/June2007/0607brd2.doc
http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/documents/SpecialEdRepCardSlides-Final2007.ppt
State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/home.html
Special Education Policy Guidance, Laws and Regulations http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/timely.htm
top related