Program accountability
Download
1 / 121

Program Accountability - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 71 Views
  • Uploaded on

Program Accountability. Making Education Work for All Children. Paying Attention. Why is it important?. Background. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004). Don’t fight forces. Use them. --R. Buckminster Fuller. A New Era.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Program Accountability' - angeni


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Program accountability

Program Accountability

Making Education Work for All Children

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Paying attention

Paying Attention

Why is it important?

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Background
Background

  • The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

  • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Don’t fight forces. Use them.

--R. Buckminster Fuller


A new era
A New Era

  • Student progress monitoring

  • Use of research-based instructional practices

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Multi tier model of service delivery

Academic Systems

Behavioral Systems

  • Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions

  • Individual Students

  • Assessment-based

  • High Intensity

  • Of longer duration

  • Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions

  • Individual Students

  • Assessment-based

  • Intense, durable procedures

  • Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions

  • Some students (at-risk)

  • High efficiency

  • Rapid response

  • Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions

  • Some students (at-risk)

  • High efficiency

  • Rapid response

Three Tier Model of School Supports

  • Tier 1: Universal Interventions

  • All students

  • Preventive, proactive

  • Tier 1: Universal Interventions

  • All settings, all students

  • Preventive, proactive

1-5%

1-5%

5-10%

5-10%

80-90%

Students

80-90%

Multi-Tier Model of Service Delivery

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


What we also hope to see
What we also hope to see . . .

SOLID LINES SEEM SO PERMANENT: WE PREFER A “DASHED” FLOW-THROUGH VERSION!

Use of the System’s Greatest Talent, No Matter What Individualized Needs Must Be Addressed

All Students Get What They Need, When They Need it

Wraparound

A “Permeable” System At All Levels

Thoughtful Transition

Access to the General Curriculum and Help, Regardless of Setting

Deliberate Fellowship Between School, Home, and Community

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.

Albert Einstein, (attributed)US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)


Paying attention1

Paying Attention same level of thinking with which we created them.

How are we doing?

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


A few data points
A Few Data Points same level of thinking with which we created them.

  • Graduation

  • Dropout

  • Disproportionality

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Graduation and dropout rates for students with ieps december 2004
Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs same level of thinking with which we created them.(December 2004)

Source: MI-CIS

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Graduation and dropout rates for students with ieps a trend analysis 1998 2004
Graduation and Dropout Rates for Students with IEPs: same level of thinking with which we created them.A Trend Analysis (1998 - 2004)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services

Source: MI-CIS


Graduation and dropout rates of students with ieps per disability category december 2004
Graduation and Dropout Rates of Students with IEPs per Disability Category (December 2004)

Source: MI-CIS

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Disproportionality
Disproportionality Disability Category (December 2004)

  • A statewide view of “risk” for selected disabilities, by race-ethnicity

  • Risk = (Number of students from racial/ethnic group in disability category / Number of all students from racial/ethnic group) * 100

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Cognitive Impairment: African Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Cognitive Impairment than other Race Ethnicities

Source: MICIS

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Learning Disabilities: Native Americans and Hispanics Show Higher Risk for Being Identified as Learning Disabled Student

Source: MICIS

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Emotional Impairment: Native Americans Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Emotional Impairment

Source: MICIS

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Speech and Language: White Students Show Higher Risk for being Identified with Speech and Language Impairments

Source: MICIS

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Assessment
Assessment being Identified with Speech and Language Impairments

  • Participation and Proficiency of students with IEPs

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


English language arts participation rate of students with ieps meap and mi access combined
English Language Arts: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)

Source: MDE / OEAA

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Mathematics participation rate of students with ieps meap and mi access combined
Mathematics: Participation Rate of Students with IEPs (MEAP and MI-Access combined)

Source: MDE / OEAA

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Proficiency students with ieps proficient on meap
Proficiency (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Source: MDE / OEAA

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Facts about special education
Facts About Special Education (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Facts about cims
Facts about CIMS (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Facts about disporportionality
Facts about Disporportionality (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Facts about graduation and drop out
Facts about Graduation and Drop Out (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Facts about lre
Facts about LRE (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Facts about assessments
Facts about Assessments (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Facts about state performance plan
Facts about State Performance Plan (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


State performance plan

State Performance Plan (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

How do we set targets for improvement in Special Education?

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Mde spp rigorous targets

MDE SPP Rigorous Targets (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

How should we select a target?

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


  • S (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)pecific - related to a service and corporate objectives

  • Measurable – input – output - outcome

  • Achievable - but also stretch the organization

  • Realistic – able to reach the target

  • Timely and Time-scaled – clearly setting out by when the expected standard or level of service will be achieved.

  • Source: Her Majesty’s Treasury Dept. Website


Targets are to be sma rt osep
Targets are to be SMA RT!--OSEP (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

bc

  • SPECIFIC

  • MEASURABLE

  • ACHIEVABLE, BUT

  • CHALLENGING

  • (Abc)

  • RELEVANT

  • TIMED

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Targets how aggressive
Targets - How aggressive? (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • It depends:

    • Stretch targets - you may not meet them but trying may get you further

    • Minimal targets - you will get there - likely to only maintain status quo - little improvement

  • Be Realistic: you may need additional info to address ability to measure success towards objective

  • This is from an Environmental Management System presentation—Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Some sources of these challenging targets
Some Sources of These Challenging Targets (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • General Education Goals

  • National Performance

  • Comparable States

  • Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average

  • Trend

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


What indicators were we asked to examine
What indicators were we asked to examine? (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Graduation Rate

  • Dropout Rate

  • LRE 3-5

  • LRE 6-12

  • Suspension/ Expulsion

  • AYP/ Assessment

  • Hearings—Little Data

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Graduation rate comparable states
Graduation Rate: Comparable States (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Comparing to other states

  • Graduation Rates at highs of 82%

  • 2003-2004 data

    • i.e. reported in Dec. 04, including Spring 03 graduations

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Graduation rate comparable states 2002 2003
Graduation Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003 (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Graduation rate trend
Graduation Rate: Trend (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Graduation rate summary
Graduation Rate: Summary (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Current Statewide Baseline Mean=67.1%

  • General Education Goals—80 %

  • National Performance—1 S.D.+ = 68.2%

  • Comparable States—Current Highs 82%

  • Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average 1S.D.+=97%

  • Trend—89 to 90%

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Dropout rate comparable states 2003 2004
Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2003-2004 (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Dropout rate comparable states 2002 2003
Dropout Rate: Comparable States 2002-2003 (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Dropout rate trend
Dropout Rate: Trend (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Dropout rate regression analysis
Dropout Rate: Regression Analysis (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Dropout rate summary
Dropout Rate: Summary (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Current Statewide Baseline Mean=26.7%

  • General Education Goals—20 % (2010)

  • National Performance—1 S.D.- = 25.7%--old data

  • Comparable States—Current Highs 2.6 to 5.2%

  • Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— 1 S.D.-=3.5%

  • Trends—0%

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 3 5 comparable states 2003 2004
LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2003-2004 (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 3 5 comparable states 2002 2003
LRE 3-5: Comparable States 2002-2003 (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 3 5 trends percent in early child setting 100 of time
LRE 3-5: Trends Percent in Early Child Setting 100% of Time (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Trend is declining

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 3 5 summary
LRE 3-5: Summary (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Current Statewide Baseline Mean=47.7%

  • General Education Goals—66% (2010)

  • National Performance—1 S.D.+ = 53.17%

  • Comparable States—Michigan is ahead

  • Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average—+ 1 S.D.=85.2%

  • Trends—Trend is down.

  • So the problem is to reverse the trend.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 6 21 comparable states 2003 2004
LRE 6-21: Comparable States 2003-2004 (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 6 21 comparable states 2002 2003
LRE 6-21: Comparable States 2002-2003 (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 6 21 trends
LRE 6-21: Trends (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Data not available to permit this.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Lre 6 21 summary
LRE 6-21: Summary (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Current Statewide Baseline Mean=44.9%

  • General Education Goals—53 % (2010)

  • National Performance— +1 S.D. = 63.1%

  • Comparable States—Current Highs 61.4% (Minn.)

  • Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— + 1 S.D.=70.7%

  • Trends—Data N.A.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Suspension expulsion comparable states
Suspension/ Expulsion: Comparable States (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Suspension expulsion trends
Suspension/ Expulsion: Trends (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Not enough cases to use this approach.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Suspension expulsion summary
Suspension/ Expulsion: Summary (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Current Statewide Baseline Mean=2.4%

  • Draft text (Gen. Ed.)—0% (2010)

  • National Performance—No data

  • Comparable States—Different Reporting Approaches

  • Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— 1 S.D.=0%

  • Trends—Not enough data.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Ayp assessment general education
AYP/ Assessment: General Education (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • FFY

  • Measurable and Rigorous Target2005

  • (2005-2006)

  • Middle School Math 43%

  • 2006

  • (2006-2007)

  • Middle School Math 43%

  • 2007

  • (2007-2008)

  • Middle School Math 54%

  • 2008

  • (2008-2009)

  • Middle School Math 54%

  • 2009

  • (2009-2010)

  • Middle School Math 54%

  • 2010

  • (2010-2011)

  • Middle School Math 66%

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Ayp assessment trends
AYP/ Assessment: Trends (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Ayp assessment regression analysis
AYP/ (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)Assessment: Regression Analysis

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Ayp assessment summary
AYP/ Assessment: Summary (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • Current Statewide Baseline Mean=32.4%

  • General Education Goals—66 % (2010)

  • National Performance—No Data

  • Comparable States—No Data

  • Standard Deviations Relative to State LEA Average— + 1 S.D.=61.5%

  • Trends—50+%

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Hearings
Hearings (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • No Data

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Processing summary
Processing Summary (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Supporting general education
Supporting General Education (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • IDEA Flow -Through funds for PD and TA

  • School Improvement Teams and Plans can be supported by Sp Ed

  • IF Sp Ed is a service, not a place, what services are in place?

  • Examples from the field: Ingham ISD

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Supporting general education continued
Supporting General Education (Continued) (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP)

  • System Improvement: Teaming with General Education and Community Resources

  • Examples…early intervening, school improvement teams, Statewide Assessment Planning, CIMS, Transition Services & HS supports to assure graduation

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Assessment and accommodations what s next
Assessment and Accommodations (% students with IEPs proficient on MEAP):What’s Next?

  • Assessment Guidelines Revision

  • HS Merit Exam and the ACT

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Whether or not we support a solution depends a lot on whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

Sam Horn Author, Tongue Fu!


Paying attention2

Paying Attention whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

How do we improve?

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Paying attention3

Paying Attention whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

Michigan’s CIMS

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Beliefs
Beliefs whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

  • There is one set of curricular standards

  • There is one set of behavioral expectations

  • Effective schools use effective practices

  • Learning differences are individual

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Michigan s continuous improvement and monitoring system
Michigan’s Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Continuous improvement and monitoring system
Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

  • Is concerned with Educational Benefit

  • Regards the child as part of the whole school

  • Targets areas of greatest concern

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Paying attention4

Paying Attention whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

The Service Provider Self-Review

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Why the spsr
Why the SPSR? whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

  • To improve student performance

  • To ensure compliance

  • To inform the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and Intermediate School District (ISD) of local district (LEA) and public school academy (PSA) needs

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Spsr highlights
SPSR Highlights whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

  • This is a process required by IDEA

  • The process is moving away from paper and moving toward local people

  • Local implementation begins in the 2005-2006 school year

  • ISD monitors will assist districts with facilitation, technical assistance, and training

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


The service provider self review
The Service Provider Self-Review whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


12 key performance indicators
12 Key Performance Indicators whether it is being done to us—or by us.”

  • Child Find

  • Positive Behavior Support

  • Student Assistance Teams

  • Family Participation

  • Curriculum

  • Least Restrictive Environment

  • Participation in the State General Assessment

  • Preparation and Planning for Adult Life

  • IEP Development, Implementation, and Timelines

  • Peer Reviewed Research and Instructional Practices

  • Highly Qualified Personnel

  • Data Use

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Map of influences among key performance indicators may 18 2005
Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Map of influences among key performance indicators may 18 20051
Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Map of influences among key performance indicators may 18 20052
Map of Influences Among Key Performance Indicators (May 18, 2005)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Paying attention5

Paying Attention 2005)

Educational Benefit

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Educational benefit reviews
Educational Benefit Reviews 2005)

  • Used to determine if the Individual Education Program (IEP) was reasonably calculated to ensure educational benefit

  • Used to look at how and how well the IEP Team made its decisions

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Educational benefit

  • TSW answer questions about written material at the 5.0 grade level.

TSW answer questions about material at the 6.0 reading level.

TSW write a multiple paragraph essay meeting the requirements of the 4.0 rubric.

TSW write a paragraph meeting the 4.0 grade level rubric.

  • TSW write a paragraph that meets the 3.0 writing rubric.

Year 1 – 8th Grade

Year 2 – 9th Grade

Year 3 – 10th Grade

Reading Comp 3.0

End of year assessment indicates Reading Comprehension level at 4.0. Reading Comprehension goals were accomplished.Written expression is at 3.0 grade level with goals being accomplished. GE grades:B in math, C in ELA, B in PE, C in science, and C in Social Studies. On the MEAP, using accommodations, Danielle Met the Standards in Math and Science and scored in the Basic range for Social Studies.

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

  • End of year Reading Comprehension 4.0 and written expression 3.0. The student did not accomplish her goals and objectives. Report card grades: D in math, F in ELA, F in science, D in Social Studies and B in Art

Reading comprehension at the 4.0 grade level and written expression at the 3.0 grades level. In Gen. Ed. received a D in Math, F in ELA, B in PE, F in Science and D in Social Studies.

Reading Comp 6.0

Reading Comp 4.0

Reading Comp 4.0

Reading Comp 5.0

Reading Comp 4.0

  • Tests read if written at higher then reading comprehension level, note taker and chapter outlines in all GE classes and writing assignments modified to student’s writing level.

Written Express3.0

Written Express4.0

Written Express3.0

Written Express4.0

Written Express 3.0

Written Express 2.0

Needs accom. in Gen. Ed.

Student is struggling in all of her Gen. Ed. classes

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

??


Educational benefit1

Reading Comp 4.0 level.

  • TSW answer questions about passages at the 4.0 reading level.

Reading Comp 3.0

  • TSW answer questions about written material at the 5.0 grade level.

TSW answer questions about material at the 6.0 reading level.

TSW write a paragraph meeting the 4.0 grade level rubric.

TSW write a multiple paragraph essay meeting the requirements of the 4.0 rubric.

  • TSW write a paragraph that meets the 3.0 writing rubric.

Written Express 2.0

Written Express 3.0

Needs accom. in Gen. Ed.

??

Year 1 – 8th Grade

Year 2 – 9th Grade

Year 3 – 10th Grade

Reading comprehension at the 4.0 grade level and written expression at the 3.0 grades level. In Gen. Ed. received a D in Math, F in ELA, B in PE, F in Science and D in Social Studies.

Reading Comp 4.0

End of year assessment indicates Reading Comprehension level at 4.0. Reading Comprehension goals were accomplished.Written expression is at 3.0 grade level with goals being accomplished. GE grades:B in math, C in ELA, B in PE, C in science, and C in Social Studies. On the MEAP, using accommodations, Danielle Met the Standards in Math and Science and scored in the Basic range for Social Studies.

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

Reading Comp 5.0

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

  • End of year Reading Comprehension 4.0 and written expression 3.0. The student did not accomplish her goals and objectives. Report card grades: D in math, F in ELA, F in science, D in Social Studies and B in Art

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

Reading Comp 6.0

Written Express4.0

  • Tests read if written at higher then reading comprehension level, note taker and chapter outlines in all GE classes and writing assignments modified to student’s writing level.

Written Express4.0

Written Express 3.0

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

Student is struggling in all of her Gen. Ed. classes


Educational benefit2

  • TSW answer questions about written material at the 5.0 grade level.

TSW answer questions about material at the 6.0 reading level.

TSW write a multiple paragraph essay meeting the requirements of the 4.0 rubric.

TSW write a paragraph meeting the 4.0 grade level rubric.

  • TSW write a paragraph that meets the 3.0 writing rubric.

Year 1 – 8th Grade

Year 2 – 9th Grade

Year 3 – 10th Grade

Reading Comp 3.0

End of year assessment indicates Reading Comprehension level at 4.0. Reading Comprehension goals were accomplished.Written expression is at 3.0 grade level with goals being accomplished. GE grades:B in math, C in ELA, B in PE, C in science, and C in Social Studies. On the MEAP, using accommodations, Danielle Met the Standards in Math and Science and scored in the Basic range for Social Studies.

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

Resource Program 20-25 min./1-2 X’s/week.

  • End of year Reading Comprehension 4.0 and written expression 3.0. The student did not accomplish her goals and objectives. Report card grades: D in math, F in ELA, F in science, D in Social Studies and B in Art

Reading comprehension at the 4.0 grade level and written expression at the 3.0 grades level. In Gen. Ed. received a D in Math, F in ELA, B in PE, F in Science and D in Social Studies.

Reading Comp 6.0

Reading Comp 4.0

Reading Comp 4.0

Reading Comp 5.0

Reading Comp 4.0

  • Tests read if written at higher then reading comprehension level, note taker and chapter outlines in all GE classes and writing assignments modified to student’s writing level.

Written Express3.0

Written Express4.0

Written Express3.0

Written Express4.0

Written Express 3.0

Written Express 2.0

Needs accom. in Gen. Ed.

Student is struggling in all of her Gen. Ed. classes

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

??


Educational benefit3

Year 1 level.

Year 2

Year 3

Your text here

Your text here

Your text here

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT


We should learn from the mistakes of others. We don’t have time to make them all ourselves.

--Groucho Marx


Paying attention6

Paying Attention time to make them all ourselves.

The MDE and State Board of Education

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


State board beliefs
State Board Beliefs time to make them all ourselves.

  • All children can learn at high levels, and that

  • A complete education helps all of our children become participating citizens who are creative, caring, and critical thinkers, and to accomplish this

  • The State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education must work in collaboration with the Governor, the Legislature, and the community of stakeholders to achieve the Vision.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


State board vision statement
State Board Vision Statement time to make them all ourselves.

  • The State Board of Education and Department of Education, with their partners, are the driving forces to create learning environments that prepare students to be successful in the 21st Century knowledge economy.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


State board initiatives
State Board Initiatives time to make them all ourselves.

  • Seclusion and Restraint (In progress)

  • Suspension and Expulsion (In progress)

  • School Improvement Framework

  • High School Reform (In progress)

  • NCLB, Assessment and AYP Discussions and Decisions (Ongoing)

  • MDE Strategic Plan 2005-2010 (Completed)

  • Visions and Principles of Universal Education (Approved 10/11/05)

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Universal education vision
Universal Education Vision time to make them all ourselves.

Learners in all of their diversity come from a variety of backgrounds and life situations that may pose barriers to their access to, experience with, and progress in public education.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Universal education vision1
Universal Education Vision time to make them all ourselves.

Every individual’s success is important to our society.

Each person deserves and needs a concerned, accepting educational community that values diversity and provides a comprehensive system of individual supports from birth to adulthood.

Universal Education removes barriers, provides flexible and responsive supports, and facilitates life-long learning for all.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Universal education vision2
Universal Education Vision time to make them all ourselves.

In order to support the learning of ALL in achieving desired educational outcomes, there must be:

  • A learning community in which diverse stakeholders play an essential role in the development and education of infants through young adults.

  • A safe and accepting learning environment characterized by our commitment to educational excellence and mutual support, respect and responsibility.

  • A foundation of comprehensive and flexible human and fiscal resources designed to prevent learning problems and to build on strengths.

  • Ongoing adult and student learning resulting in effective, customized, instructional practices informed by student performance data.

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Universal education vision3
Universal Education Vision time to make them all ourselves.

Educational

Organizations

& Associations

Parent/

Student

Organizations

Advocacy

Groups/

Organizations

State/Local

Boards of

Education

Business &

Community

Organizations

Legislature

Other

Stakeholders

Teacher Training

& Pre-Service

Organizations

Executive

Branch of

Government

Other

Factors

Court

Involved

Criminal/

Juvenile

Justice System

Family

Human Services System

Emotional & Mental Health

English

Language Learners

Other

Educational

Settings

Pregnant / Parenting

Teens/Youth

Community

Homelessness

Neighborhood

Schools

Learning Style Differences

Juvenile Justice

System

Involvement

Public School

Academies

Agency/Court

Placements

Home

Schools

Non-Public

Schools

Alternative

Education

Academically

Advanced &

Accelerated

Youth in Transition

Suspended /

Expelled

Disability

Socioeconomic Status

Dropout

Sexual Orientation

Runaway /

Throw-Away

Religious Beliefs

Foster Care

Gender Identity

& Expression

Race / Ethnicity

Physical

Health

Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


Universal education aligns with
Universal Education aligns with: time to make them all ourselves.

  • The State Board Strategic Goal

  • The State Board Task Forces:

    • Early Childhood Literacy

    • Elevating Educational Leadership

    • Embracing the Information Age

    • Ensuring Excellent Educators

    • Integrating Schools and Communities

  • The High School Reform Team

  • The Lieutenant Governor’s Commission on

    • Higher Education and Economic Growth

  • Yardstick for Success

  • Aligning for Leadership

  • Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    Paying attention7

    Paying Attention time to make them all ourselves.

    School Improvement Framework

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.

    Then it doesn't matter which way you walk, said the Cat. -so long as I get somewhere, Alice added. Oh, you're sure to do that, said the Cat, if you only walk long enough.-- Lewis Carroll...Alice in Wonderland


    The vision
    The Vision… here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.

    • Provide a comprehensive framework based on current research and best practice to serve as a road map to support continuous school improvement.

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    The vision1
    The Vision… here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.

    • Requirements:

      Develop a framework that is based on research yet can be individualized to support the unique needs of each school.

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    Strand II – LEADERSHIP here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.

    Strand V - DATA & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

    The 5 Strands

    Strand I - TEACHING & LEARNING

    Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

    Strand IV – SCHOOL & COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    The 12 Standards here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.

    Strand I – TEACHING

    & LEARNING

    Strand II - LEADERSHIP

    CURRICULUM

    INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

    INSTRUCTION

    SHARED LEADERSHIP

    ASSESSMENT

    OPERATIONAL RESOURCE MNGT.

    Strand III - PERSONNEL & PROF. LEARNING

    Strand IV - SCHOOL/ COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    Strand V - DATA & INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

    PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

    PARENT/FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

    DATA MANAGEMENT

    PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

    COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

    INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    Paying attention8

    Paying Attention here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the cat. I don't much care where, said Alice.

    Opportunities and Conclusions

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    Mde office of special education and early intervention services opportunities
    MDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: Opportunities

    • NCLB and IDEA 2004

    • School Reform Initiatives

    • MDE and State Board Plans and Work

    • OSE/EIS State Performance Plan

    • Grantees’ Successes, such as MiBLSi

    • Monitoring that is Moving from Paper to People (CIMS)

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    Mde office of special education and early intervention services conclusions
    MDE Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services: Conclusions

    • Committed to enhancing our dialogue with general educators for the benefit of ALL students

    • Data is informing our decisions and work

    • Using technology to save time and dollars (for all) in disseminating information

    • Looking at fresh and effective ways to exchange ideas with stakeholders

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    The mde is paying attention

    The MDE is Paying Attention Services: Conclusions

    Because it is all important!

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    Web site

    Web site Services: Conclusions

    www.cenmi.org/cims

    www.michigan.gov/mde

    Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services


    ad