bureau of special education

Bureau of Special Education

Diane M. Murphy

Performance Office

Bureau of Data Collection, Research and Evaluation

[email protected]

11th Annual Back-to-School

Meeting

Monitoring Updates SEDAC Desk Audit: 2009-10 was first year

2 years ago – combined SEDAC Desk Audit, BSE File Review, Assessment Audit, as well as Focused Monitoring Data Review and District Selection.

2014-15 – resetting monitoring cycle from six years to three (3) years and adding Parent Survey to the cycle of monitoring activities (listed above).

• Cohort A – 2015 (56 districts)

• Cohort B – 2016 (51 districts)

• Cohort C – 2017 (63 districts)

SEDAC Desk Audit – Oct. 1, 2013

Congratulations on a great SEDAC desk audit!!!

East Hartford Ledyard Norfolk Ridgefield

Greenwich Mansfield North Branford Seymour

Guilford Milford Oxford Sprague

Hartland New Fairfield Pomfret Suffield

Hebron New Hartford Putnam RSD #15

Kent Newington Redding

3


BSE File Review – Spring 2014


East Hartford Lisbon Norfolk Redding

Greenwich Madison North Branford Ridgefield

Guilford Milford Oxford Seymour

Hampton Naugatuck Plymouth Sherman

Hebron New Hartford Pomfret Sprague

Ledyard Newington Putnam Windsor

4

Congratulations on a great File Review!!!

SEDAC Audit/BSE File Review Winter 2015 (Oct. 14 data); Parent Survey Summer 2015; Focused Monitoring Summer/Fall 2015; (2018; 2021; 2024)

Andover

Barkhamsted

Bethel

Bolton

Bozrah

Colebrook

Cromwell

Eastford

East Haddam

East Hampton

East Lyme

East Windsor

Enfield

Glastonbury

Granby

Hartford

Hebron

Litchfield

Madison

Marlborough

Meriden

Montville

Naugatuck

New Canaan

New Fairfield

New Hartford

Newtown

Norfolk

Norwich

Plainfield

Plymouth

Preston

Putnam

Rocky Hill

Sherman

Simsbury

Southington

Stamford

Sterling

Thomaston

Voluntown

Wallingford

West

Hartford

West Haven

Wethersfield

Windsor

Regional SD #7

Regional SD #8

Regional SD #13

Regional SD #14

Regional SD #15

Regional SD #16

Regional SD #17

Regional SD #18

USD #1 USD #2

Cohort A

Orange highlight – district will participate in the Parent Survey in both 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years.Green highlight – district will be excluded from SEDAC Desk Audit/BSE File Review in 2014-15.


Ansonia

Avon

Berlin

Bethany

Bloomfield

Canterbury

Cheshire

Chester

Clinton

Columbia

Danbury

Darien

Deep River

East Granby

East Haven

Essex

Fairfield

Franklin

Greenwich

Groton

Guilford

Lebanon

Lisbon

Middletown

Milford

New Haven

Newington

New Milford

North Branford

Norwalk

Old Saybrook

Orange

Pomfret

Portland

Ridgefield

Seymour

Somers

Stafford

Stonington

Tolland

Torrington

Union

Waterbury

Windham

Wolcott

Woodbridge

Woodstock

Regional SD #4

Regional SD #5

Regional SD #10

Regional SD #12

Cohort B


Ashford

Branford

Bridgeport

Bristol

Brookfield

Brooklyn

Canaan

Canton

Chaplin

Colchester

Cornwall

Coventry

Derby

East Hartford

Easton

Ellington

Farmington

Griswold

Hamden

Hampton

Hartland

Kent

Killingly

Ledyard

Manchester

Mansfield

Monroe

New Britain

New

London

North Canaan

North Haven

North Stonington

Oxford

Plainville

Redding

Salem

Salisbury

Scotland

Sharon

Shelton

South Windsor

Sprague

Stratford

Suffield

Thompson

Trumbull

Vernon

Waterford

Watertown

Westbrook

Weston

Westport

Willington

Wilton

Winchester

Windsor Locks

Regional SD#1

Regional SD#6

Regional SD#9

Regional SD#11

Regional SD#19

DMHAS

CTHSS

Cohort C

Restraint and SeclusionMost Common Issues

APSEPs cannot enter R/S Incident within 2 business days

Solution: Timely updating of PSIS Registration(Facility Code 1, Facility Entry and Exit Dates)

Injury to the student

Solution: Only report injury to student restrained or secluded – not injuries to staff or other students

Injury Details

Solution: Provide details of actual injury that the student sustained (e.g. bump, bruise, red mark)

http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/help/sedac/default.aspx

Alternative School Programs Study Public Act 13-122

10

Study RecommendationsIn order to provide in-depth support and oversight, the CSDE developed procedures that require all districts to: establish a specific organization code within the CSDE data

system for ALL Programs under their purview including: off-site locations, multisite programs, and programs that run after school hours.

indicate which of the students reported to the CSDE through student data collections are enrolled at these programs; and

report staff assignment data for educators assigned to those programs.

Identifying the programs to which students and staff are assigned will allow for the collection and analyses of participation, engagement, and outcomes of students enrolled in those programs.

11

Study RecommendationsPrograms will submit to all applicable student, staff and school-level CSDE data collections. All Programs must have DM organization codes. This includes:

• off-site locations; • district run programs located off-site from the sending school the

students would otherwise attend

• multisite programs;• obtain separate codes for each program location/site

• expulsion programs; and • If students can be placed into the program as an alternative setting or by

PPT; the expulsion program must have an organization code

• programs the run after school hours.• separate code in DM to represent evening programming

12

PROGRAM typesAlternative Education

Alternative programs exist to engage and educate students who may not have realized their fullest potential in the regular class setting. These programs use curriculum and methods that are nontraditional and offer more flexible programs of study. Alternative programs can be off-site of the typical school setting or embedded using school-within-a-school models.

Special EducationPrograms designed for students with disabilities receiving special education and related services under IDEA. These programs are generally designed to serve students with a specific primary disability and/or behaviors. This code exists for segregated special education programs designed to draw students with disabilities from multiple schools across the district or which are situated in a separate building. Only district-wide special education programs should be reported using this program code; do not use this code to report each special education classroom/resource room in a district.

13

PROGRAM typesExpulsion

Education programming for students serving expulsions or long-term out-of-school suspensions, as required under C.G.S. Section 10-233c. Do not use this code for homebound programs for expelled students. Expulsion programs that require organization codes exist at a separate physical location, are run year-round and can have students placed into them who are not there due to a suspension/expulsion.

Dropout Diversion/Credit RecoveryDropout diversion programs are designed to provide a positive and rewarding school learning experiences for students who are at risk of dropping out of school. These programs focus on improving work/study habits such as organizational skills and productivity. The purpose of credit recovery programs are to allow students in grades 9-12 to recover academic credit lost due to course failure and to complete coursework required for graduation.

Facility Code Update School & Program Codes used to be “smart”.

01-59 = Elementary School 60-70 = High School 90-98 = special ed district-wide programs

Organization Codes (same 7-digit code as before) No longer Smart (except first 3 digits = district) Now we collect “Attributes”

Public Elementary School vs. Public Secondary School Approved Private Special Education Program (“21’s”) Program: including Program “Type” attribute

Transition; Special Education; Dropout; Alternative

Program Codes and FAPE SettingsRecoding by Hand: 2013-14 & 2014-15

FAPE Environments

(Ages 6-21)

SEDAC2013

Final based on

RECODEChange Change %

80-100% TWNDP 42757 42713 -44 99.9%

40-80% TWNDP 10936 10927 -9 99.9%

0-40% TWNDP 3770 3708 -62 98.4%

Separate School 3669 3762 93 102.5%

Residential Facility 588 610 22 103.7%

Selecting E.C. Settings (p.12)FAPE Environments (Children Ages 3-5)

SEDACFinal

based on RECODE

Change Change %

Special Ed delivered in Regular EC PK/K (10+ hrs/wk) 5143 5490 347 106.7%

Special Ed delivered outside Regular EC PK/K (10+ hrs/wk) 475 480 5 101.1%

Special Ed delivered in Regular EC PK/K (<10 hrs/wk) 282 296 14 105.0%

Special Ed delivered outside Regular EC PK/K (<10 hrs/wk) 49 51 2 104.1%

EC Special Ed in Separate Class 1170 854 -316 73.0%

EC Special Ed in Separate School 106 54 -52 50.9%

“Technical Edits” Guidance Memo Technical edits can only be made to sections of CT’s document that are not

required IEP components (34 C.F.R. § 300.320). District’s do not need to convene PPT meetings or use the IEP amendment process to complete a technical edit. Technical edit steps: Contact the parents of the child by phone to identify and discuss the proposed technical

edit; respond to questions from the parents about the proposed change. Complete the edit and immediately send the parents a notice that explains the change, with

the technical edit highlighted in an updated copy of the IEP. Provide updated copies of the IEP document to the child’s case manager and place in the

student’s file.

IMPORTANT: Any change to: (1) the IEP document that amends or modifies the IDEA required IEP components, or (2) the Prior Written Notice, is considered a substantive change and would not be permissible outside the PPT or IEP amendment process.

English Learner (EL) DisproportionalityPublic Act No. 13-193

Any LEA identified by the CSDE that disproportionately and inappropriately identifies English language learners as requiring special education services because such students have a reading deficiency shall annually submit a report to the department on the plan adopted that reduces the misidentification of such English language learners by improving reading assessments and interventions for students in kindergarten to grade three, inclusive.

EL Disproportionality AnalysisAnalysis Criteria:

Similar two-part analysis used in Disability, Placement, and Discipline disproportionality to identify “data of concern.”

1. Statistically significant difference between percentage of special education and general education students who are EL (chi-square)

2. Relative Risk interpretation (RRI ≥ 1.5)

3. No minimum ‘n’, but includes a requirement that the special education students who are also EL in the district must be ≥ 5.0%.

EL DisproportionalityDistricts identified with data of concern must conduct a self-assessment (provided by the BSE) to determine if the disproportionality is due to the misidentification of EL students, who have a reading deficiency, as eligible for special education. In these cases, the district must adopt a plan to improving reading assessments and interventions for K-3 students and report annually on the plan to the BSE. Timeline:

Timeline: EL Disproportionality Stakeholder Group: Fall 2014 Self-Assessment developed and 2013 Data disseminated: Winter 2015 Review District Plans, where applicable: Winter/Spring 2015 2014 Data Review: March/April 2015

EL Disproportionality contact:Marcus Rivera –Bureau of Special Ed 860-713-6932; [email protected]

District/School Accountability (3.0)May 2012: ESEA Flexibility was approved as the CSDE’s accountability model (2.0); replacing AYP. Key changes were:

Winter 2015: CSDE must submit an ESEA Flexibility Renewal Application. CSDE has been soliciting input from district and school leaders in the development of this model. Extensive public comment will also be sought during the preparation of the official renewal application. Enhancements being considered in the 3.0 model including new metrics relative to:

performance index scores school classifications

smaller subgroup N-size customized annual performance targets

longitudinal academic growth college and career readiness

well-roundedness civic engagement

Data…Data…Data…

Improving Results: Supporting Positive Student Behavior

Chronic Absenteeism (<90% attendance)

LD ID ED (4K)

SLI Other (3K)

OHI (12K)

AU (6K)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

2011

2012

2013

ALL SWD

Chronic Absenteeism

2011 2012 20130.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Newly Identified

ALL SWD

Time With Non-Disabled Peers Trend Data

2009 2010 2011 2012 20130%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 - 40%

2009 2010 2011 2012 20130%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

90%

80 - 100%

Time With Non-Disabled Peers 2013-14

LD ID ED SLI

Other

OHI

AU0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%0 - 40%

LD ID ED SLI

Other

OHI

AU0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

80 - 100%

Discipline2012-13

LD ID ED SLI

Other

OHI

AU0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%In-School Suspension

LD ID ED SLI

Other

OHI

AU0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Out-of-School Suspension

Restraint and Seclusion2012-13

LD ID ED SLI Other OHI AU0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

*Other includes students with consent to evaluate**Primary Disability on Last Reported Incident for 2012-13

Enjoy the rest of the conference!

This Power Point presentation will be posted on September 30th.

http://www.ctserc.org/bts14docs

bureau of special education

Documents