How Can We Work Together to Close the Achievement Gap? h c L i - PDF document

9/19/16 Dr. Alan Coulter Results Driven Accountability Where … … were we? … are we? … do we go next? new realities new choices Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016 #SPEDAhead How Can We Work Together to Close the Achievement Gap? h c L i t i g r a t i o n a e s e R Laws FBA IEP RTI P D E A P F MTSS 1

9/19/16 Dr. Alan Coulter • Over 25 years experience with U.S. OSEP and state DOEs and LEAs on accountability issues • Served on the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education • Director of Education Initiatives and an Associate Professor at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences and Human Development Center. • Director of the TIERS Group (Teams Intervening Early to Reach all Students) #SPEDAhead 2

9/19/16 Special Education: It's Time to Get Results! We have limited time to get the best results for children with disabilities and their families 3

9/19/16 Today’s Webinar Part 1 Where Were We? Today’s Webinar Part Part 2 1 Where Where Were We? Are We? Today’s Webinar Part Part Part 3 2 1 Where Where Where Do Were We? Are We? We Go Next? 4

9/19/16 Results Driven Accountability Part 1 Where Were We? Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 Purposes of the Law: 1. Free appropriate public education 2. Assure rights 3. Assist states and locals to provide services 4. Assess and assure effectiveness “Everyone can agree with the objective stated in the title of this bill -- educating all handicapped children in our Nation. The key question is whether the bill will really accomplish that objective.” President Gerald Ford, 1975 5

9/19/16 39 Years of Special Education Law Purpose 1 of the Law “ … to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them … a Free Appropriate Public Education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.” Child Find “All children residing in the state who are handicapped, regardless of the severity of their handicap, and who are in need of special education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated.” Prevalence of Disabilities in the U.S. First 25 Years of IDEA 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 Child Find 2,000,000 is working 1,000,000 0 1976 1980 1990 2000 2010 6

9/19/16 Purpose 2 of the Law “ … to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents … are protected.” Due Process Hearings Steadily Decreasing 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 New York 3000 Puerto Rico 2000 D.C. 1000 All Other States 0 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2004 2006 2008 2010 Purpose 3 of the Law “ … to assist states and localities to provide for the educations of ALL children with disabilities.” 7

9/19/16 Technical Assistance & Dissemination Network Projects funded by the U.S. DOE Technical Assistance & Dissemination Network Projects funded by the U.S. DOE Purpose 4 of the Law “ … to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities.” 8

9/19/16 What’s Your Altitude Today? Altitude affects view of effectiveness of special education Monitoring Compliance “The Office of Special Education Services will be looking at 6,000 to 7,000 IEPs in the next few months to see whether any problems are developing.” Ernest Boyer, Director, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped Never Forget … There are more than 755 process requirements in IDEA ’04 regulations. 9

9/19/16 Checklist Mentality Going to Non Compliance Jail? • Corrective actions • Settlement agreements • Independent monitors Historic Focus Procedural Compliance Student Learning Outcomes 10

9/19/16 IDEA-B: SPP Results Indicators Group 1 1: Graduation 2: Drop out 3: Statewide assessment 4: Suspension and expulsion 5: Educational environments 6: Preschool educational environments 7: Preschool outcomes 8: Parent involvement 14: Postsecondary outcomes 18: Resolution session agreements 19: Mediated agreements IDEA-B: SPP Results Indicators Group 1 1: Graduation 2: Drop out Not Counted Towards 3: Statewide assessment Determination of Compliance 4: Suspension and expulsion 5: Educational environments 6: Preschool educational environments 7: Preschool outcomes 8: Parent involvement 14: Postsecondary outcomes 18: Resolution session agreements 19: Mediated agreements IDEA-B: SPP Compliance Indicators Group 2 10: Disproportionate representation 11: Child Find 12: Early childhood transition 13: Secondary transition 15: Compliance findings 20: Timely and accurate data These were the basis of state status determinations (up to 2014) 11

9/19/16 2007 U.S. Dept. of Education Determinations on State Implementation of IDEA Part B Determinations Aggregate Performance on Selected Compliance Indicators 100 Getting 90 Better! 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Transition B to C Complaints Timely Data Timely Resolved Evaluations 2005 2010 What Could Have Been before RDA Virgin Islands Puerto Rico 12

9/19/16 Never Forget … Never Forget Even if you could be in compliance with all 755, you would have NO ASSURANCE OF RESULTS. What’s Missing? “For too long we’ve been a compliance- driven bureaucracy when it come to educating students with disabilities.” U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan 13

9/19/16 The Emphasis of I.D.E.A. • Equal opportunity • Full participation • Independent living • Self-sufficiency Focus of Monitoring Activities • Improving educational RESULTS and functional OUTCOMES for all children with disabilities • Ensuring that states meet … the program requirements, with … emphasis on those most related to IMPROVING RESULTS Percentage of Public School Students with a ‘Proficient' Score Students w/IEPs Other students reading math reading math 4 th grade 10 14 30 35 8 th grade 8 7 34 27 12 th grade 12 6 40 26 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2015 14

9/19/16 Percentage of public school students with a ‘Proficient' score National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2015 Students w/IEPs Other students reading math reading math 4 th grade 10 14 30 35 8 th grade 8 7 34 27 12 th grade 12 6 40 26 Closing the Achievement Gap Equal outcomes for students who have disabilities compared to students who do not % of 8th Grade Students with Disabilities at or Above Achievement Levels GAP Data Source: OSEP 15

9/19/16 U.S. Average Graduation Rate: 63% Range: 83% to 28% Employment Rate 100 90 80 70 60 50 Less Than 40% 40 30 20 10 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 16

9/19/16 Shift the Balance Student Learning Outcomes Procedural Compliance Shift the Balance Student Learning Outcomes Procedural Compliance 17

9/19/16 RDA = Effectiveness of Services • Monitor data to determine if changes are needed • Maintain compliance requirements Remember This? Procedural Compliance Only Washington, D.C. Several additional US Territories not shown Remember This? Procedural Compliance Only n i a g A r e v E r o , 5 1 - 4 1 Washington, D.C. 0 2 n i t o N Several additional US Territories not shown 18

9/19/16 U.S. Dept. of Education Determinations on State Implementation of IDEA Part B Determinations - 2014 Meets Requirements (18) Needs Assistance (37) Needs Intervention (5) Several additional US Territories not shown U.S. Dept. of Education Determinations on State Implementation of IDEA Part B Determinations - 2015 Meets Requirements (21) Needs Assistance (36) Needs Intervention (3) Several additional US Territories not shown U.S. Dept. of Education Determinations on State Implementation of IDEA Part B Determinations - 2016 Meets Requirements (26) Needs Assistance (31) Needs Intervention (3) Several additional US Territories not shown 19

9/19/16 State Status Determinations Over Time Meets Needs Needs Requirements Assistance Intervention 2014 18 37 5 2015 21 36 3 2016 26 31 3 Not Entirely Accurate Remember the Concept of Altitude! Three Guiding Principles of RDA 1. Align Your Efforts Focus your resources on what is most likely to reduce the achievement gap 20

9/19/16 2. Reduce the Reporting Burden Document what is minimally required by law 3. Monitor Data Sources and Measures How students with disabilities perform compared to their peers OSEP’s Focus for RDA ü Graduation Three Results rates Indicators ü Assessments ü Post-secondary outcomes 21

9/19/16 S tate S ystematic I mprovement P lan Indicator #17 describes how states are supporting school districts in improving results Results Driven Accountability Part 2 Where Are We? Five Step Process 1 5 2 4 3 22

9/19/16 DATA Data Analysis • Multiple data sources Data Analysis • Multiple data sources • Disaggregated data 23

9/19/16 Data Analysis • Multiple data sources • Disaggregated data • Data quality Data Analysis • Multiple data sources • Disaggregated data • Data quality • Compliance data Data Analysis • Multiple data sources • Disaggregated data • Data quality • Compliance data issues • Trends and patterns 24