Charting A Path to Success:  Building Systems to Improve Results and Compliance in Special Education

Charting A Path to Success: Building Systems to Improve Results and Compliance in Special Education PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 80 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Double Session (9:45-12:00). Sequence of information (and approximate times)General OSE Updates (9:45

Download Presentation

Charting A Path to Success: Building Systems to Improve Results and Compliance in Special Education

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


1. Charting A Path to Success: Building Systems to Improve Results and Compliance in Special Education Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

2. Double Session (9:45-12:00) Sequence of information (and approximate times) General OSE Updates (9:45 – 10:05) Compliance Updates (10:05 – 10:35) Data Updates (10:40 – 11:05) Effective Practices Updates (11:05 – 11:50) Q & A (11:50 – 12:00)

3. General Updates Federal/State news/updates/priorities DESE/OSE Communication SELS Monthly Webinars NAEP Determinations Monitoring Grants

4. National (Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services [OSERS]) Goals Intervene early to prepare infants, toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities to enter kindergarten ready to learn and to be successful Prepare children and youth with disabilities for college and/or careers in a global economy Prepare youth and adults with disabilities, particularly those with significant disabilities, for high-quality employment and self-sufficiency Engage people with disabilities in the development of strategies to meet their lifetime goals and include families and communities as partners Prepare personnel to provide high-quality services to infants/toddlers, children, youth and adults with disabilities Create stronger links between research, development and innovation to improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities This slide lists the goals of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. These are goals that staff have set at the National level. I think you will see that they are goals that we also have for ourselves at the state, and I would hope, local level. In order to meet the goals on this slide, educators at all levels (federal, state and local) need to work together to… Ensure students with disabilities are general education students FIRST Promote general education initiatives Promote early intervention/transition services Increase school completion for all students Ensure students are prepared for postsecondary education/training and/or employment This slide lists the goals of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. These are goals that staff have set at the National level. I think you will see that they are goals that we also have for ourselves at the state, and I would hope, local level. In order to meet the goals on this slide, educators at all levels (federal, state and local) need to work together to… Ensure students with disabilities are general education students FIRST Promote general education initiatives Promote early intervention/transition services Increase school completion for all students Ensure students are prepared for postsecondary education/training and/or employment

5. Balancing Results & Compliance The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring (General Supervision) activities shall be on Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities and Ensuring that States (and LEAs) meet the program requirements with emphasis on those requirements most closely related to improving results IDEA 2004 continued to shift the focus of special education from compliance to performance. It made it clear that the State should be working with districts to improve the performance of students with disabilities, not just monitoring for procedural compliance.IDEA 2004 continued to shift the focus of special education from compliance to performance. It made it clear that the State should be working with districts to improve the performance of students with disabilities, not just monitoring for procedural compliance.

6. Department Vision/Mission/Goals Our Vision Missouri public schools: the best choice…the best results! Our Mission The mission of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is to guarantee the superior preparation and performance of every child in school and in life.   Our Goals 1.All Missouri students will graduate college and career ready. 2.All Missouri children will enter kindergarten prepared to be successful in school. 3.Missouri will prepare, develop, and support effective educators. 4.The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will improve departmental efficiency and operational effectiveness. Here are our “draft” Vision/Mission/goals for the Department. As I stated, we are currently working on Strategies and Actions to assist us in meeting these and these will be shared with constituent groups for feedback.Here are our “draft” Vision/Mission/goals for the Department. As I stated, we are currently working on Strategies and Actions to assist us in meeting these and these will be shared with constituent groups for feedback.

7. Top 10 by 2010

8. Data Team Training The Data Teams training demonstrates how to implement data-driven decision making at the classroom practitioner level. In this training, participants: • Learn how to form Data Teams. • Learn how to collaborate on gathering data that will immediately address urgent areas of student achievement. • Learn how Data Teams set improvement goals and how they collect and analyze student achievement data to monitor these goals. • Identify the function and purpose of an effective Data Team in relation to school and district achievement goals. • Discuss the important distinction between effect and cause data.

9. Communication with field Webinars http://dese.mo.gov/webinar-schedule.htm August 2010--ECSE Educational Environments September 2010--Special Education Personnel Reporting October 2010--Special Education Compliance November 2010--Functional Behavioral Assessments January 2011--Transition from First Steps to ECSE February 2011--ECSE Expenditure Guide March 25, 2011--Dropout Prevention April 19, 2011—Child Complaints and Due Process May 2011—Fiscal Practices (date tbd) March 25 (National Dropout Center) April 19 (Child Complaint and Due Process) May (Fiscal Practices – Funds) March 25 (National Dropout Center) April 19 (Child Complaint and Due Process) May (Fiscal Practices – Funds)

10. Communication with Field Webinars June, 2011—Early Childhood Outcomes June, 2011—Check and Connect August, 2011—MO Connections September, 2011—VR Transition Toolkit October, 26, 2011—Special Education Eligibility November 30, 2011—Transfer Procedures December, 2011—TBA (possible funds or data) January, 24, 2012—Special Education Finance

11. Communication with the field Administrative Memos http://dese.mo.gov/am/ Selected AMs of Interest

12. Office of Special Education Communication SELS is used by the Division to disseminate important special education information concerning funding, compliance, data collection/reporting, professional development, etc. SELS—limited e-mail group available to only one contact person per school district/agency. SELS2—Open to anyone wanting to subscribe. To subscribe go to http://dese.mo.gov/divspeced/sels2_subscribe.html or contact Lina Browner at [email protected] or 573-751-5739 In addition to the Administrative Memos mentioned above, the Office of Special Education continues to maintain the SELs and SELs2 listservs. Both listservs receive the exact same messages at the exact same time. The only difference is how individuals are placed on the list. What is ListServ (SELs/SELs2)? February 2000, the Division of Special Education created the Special Education Listserve (SELS).  It has been and continues to be a limited e-mail group (with listserve being a misnomer since it really isn’t a listserve) available to only one contact person per school district/responsible public agency.  It is used by the Division to disseminate important special education information concerning funding, compliance, data collection, professional development, etc.  The Division has created a second e-mail group called SELS2.  This e-mail group is open to anyone wanting to subscribe (principals, teachers, parents, etc.).  It will allow subscribers to receive the EXACT same messages as subscribers to SELS.  By creating this second e-mail group, all constituents interested in special education will have the opportunity to receive the Division’s e-mail messages, not just one contact per school district/responsible public agency.  It also allows DESE to maintain the ability to make sure that every district has at least one contact person per district receiving these messages.  Messages are from DESE only and may only be posted by the manager (Lina Browner, Division of Special Education).  Members may not post messages to either SELS or SELS2. How Do I Subscribe? Those interested in subscribing to SELS2 can do so by going to the following website: http://dese.mo.gov/divspeced/sels2_subscribe.html or contact Lina Browner (contact information listed below). Questions or Problems Subscribing to SELS and/or needing to change SELS For questions or concerns, contact Lina Browner, Executive Assistant, Division of Special Education at (573) 751-5739 via email at [email protected] In addition to the Administrative Memos mentioned above, the Office of Special Education continues to maintain the SELs and SELs2 listservs. Both listservs receive the exact same messages at the exact same time. The only difference is how individuals are placed on the list. What is ListServ (SELs/SELs2)? February 2000, the Division of Special Education created the Special Education Listserve (SELS).  It has been and continues to be a limited e-mail group (with listserve being a misnomer since it really isn’t a listserve) available to only one contact person per school district/responsible public agency.  It is used by the Division to disseminate important special education information concerning funding, compliance, data collection, professional development, etc.  The Division has created a second e-mail group called SELS2.  This e-mail group is open to anyone wanting to subscribe (principals, teachers, parents, etc.).  It will allow subscribers to receive the EXACT same messages as subscribers to SELS.  By creating this second e-mail group, all constituents interested in special education will have the opportunity to receive the Division’s e-mail messages, not just one contact per school district/responsible public agency.  It also allows DESE to maintain the ability to make sure that every district has at least one contact person per district receiving these messages.  Messages are from DESE only and may only be posted by the manager (Lina Browner, Division of Special Education).  Members may not post messages to either SELS or SELS2. How Do I Subscribe? Those interested in subscribing to SELS2 can do so by going to the following website: http://dese.mo.gov/divspeced/sels2_subscribe.html or contact Lina Browner (contact information listed below). Questions or Problems Subscribing to SELS and/or needing to change SELS For questions or concerns, contact Lina Browner, Executive Assistant, Division of Special Education at (573) 751-5739 via email at [email protected]

13. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Not all districts/schools participate Expectation is that students with disabilities will participate in NAEP in same manner as MAP If participate in regular MAP with or without accommodations, then should participate in NAEP, with or without accommodations If participate in MAP-A, then would not participate in NAEP If states (districts/schools) exclude too many student with disabilities, it will impact the reporting of their NAEP scores

14. Determinations OSEP issues state Determinations annually Four categories Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Needs Substantial Intervention States also required to issue Determinations for LEAs Annually in June

15. Determinations Criteria Audit Findings Timely and Accurate Data Disproportionality Initial Evaluation Part C to B Timelines Secondary Transition Planning Timely correction of Noncompliance Graduation Rate Dropout Rate Assessment Participation Assessment Performance

16. District Determinations by Year

17. Monitoring Changes

18. GRANTS

19. You may not be able to see this chart very well (and this chart is available on our website), but what it shows is all of the 20 Performance and Compliance Indicators for which we are responsible, as well as the targets for each year. For 05-06 and 06-07 the chart also shows our actual performance on the indicator for that year. Some of the indicators are more related to student performance—such as those related to graduation and drop out rates, participation and performance on state assessments (MAP and MAP A), rates of suspension/expulsion, services in the least restrictive environment, parent involvement etc. Some of the indicators are more related to compliance, such as timelines for completing initial evaluations and evaluations for children coming to Early Childhood Special Education from First Steps, postsecondary transition goals and services, and correction of non-compliance. But regardless of whether the indicators are related to student results or compliance or timely and accurate data, the entire SPP is designed with the purpose of ultimately improving outcomes for students with disabilities. You will be hearing a lot about improvement planning from us. The SPP is really the Division’s improvement plan in that we have established targets for the state and have identified activities that we anticipate will enable the state (and local districts) to meet the targets. The SPP and APR are out work. Second number is the graduation or dropout rate excluding data from Department of Corrections TBD indicates that targets will be set in future updates of the State Performance Plan For more information, see Missouri State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report for Part B at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/SPPpage.html. Second number is the graduation or dropout rate excluding data from Department of Corrections TBD indicates that targets will be set in future updates of the State Performance Plan For more information, see Missouri State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report for Part B at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/SPPpage.html. You may not be able to see this chart very well (and this chart is available on our website), but what it shows is all of the 20 Performance and Compliance Indicators for which we are responsible, as well as the targets for each year. For 05-06 and 06-07 the chart also shows our actual performance on the indicator for that year. Some of the indicators are more related to student performance—such as those related to graduation and drop out rates, participation and performance on state assessments (MAP and MAP A), rates of suspension/expulsion, services in the least restrictive environment, parent involvement etc. Some of the indicators are more related to compliance, such as timelines for completing initial evaluations and evaluations for children coming to Early Childhood Special Education from First Steps, postsecondary transition goals and services, and correction of non-compliance. But regardless of whether the indicators are related to student results or compliance or timely and accurate data, the entire SPP is designed with the purpose of ultimately improving outcomes for students with disabilities. You will be hearing a lot about improvement planning from us. The SPP is really the Division’s improvement plan in that we have established targets for the state and have identified activities that we anticipate will enable the state (and local districts) to meet the targets. The SPP and APR are out work. Second number is the graduation or dropout rate excluding data from Department of Corrections TBD indicates that targets will be set in future updates of the State Performance PlanFor more information, see Missouri State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report for Part B at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/SPPpage.html.

20. Update on the February 1, 2011 APR For more information, see Missouri State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report for Part B at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/SPPpage.html Data reported on 2-1-11 APR is 2009-10 Data

21. Again, you probably can’t see this very well, but this is a summary chart of each of the 20 Indicators, our state performance for 05-06 through 09-10 and whether we met our target for each year and made progress or slipped from the previous APR. In the interest of time, I’m not going to cover all of the Indicators here, but all of our data is on the web, and I would encourage you to go out and look at it. Again, you probably can’t see this very well, but this is a summary chart of each of the 20 Indicators, our state performance for 05-06 through 09-10 and whether we met our target for each year and made progress or slipped from the previous APR. In the interest of time, I’m not going to cover all of the Indicators here, but all of our data is on the web, and I would encourage you to go out and look at it.

22. COMPLIANCE UPDATE

23. Compliance Update—related to SPP Indicators

24. SPP 5 a & b Indicators 5 a, b, and c look at placements in the LRE. As you can see, we have to look at Inside Regular Class >79%, Inside Regular Class <40% (self-contained) and Separate Settings. We don’t have to report on Resource, or Inside Regular Class between 40 and 80% of the time. As you can see, we are falling slightly short of meeting our targets for IRC >79%. For SC (IRC <40%) we missed the target slightly last year, but made the target this year. We are being successful at moving students out of more restrictive settings statewide. How are districts doing? Indicators 5 a, b, and c look at placements in the LRE. As you can see, we have to look at Inside Regular Class >79%, Inside Regular Class <40% (self-contained) and Separate Settings. We don’t have to report on Resource, or Inside Regular Class between 40 and 80% of the time. As you can see, we are falling slightly short of meeting our targets for IRC >79%. For SC (IRC <40%) we missed the target slightly last year, but made the target this year. We are being successful at moving students out of more restrictive settings statewide. How are districts doing?

25. District Performance on Indicator 5 Our % of districts meeting the target for IRC >79% went down by 1.5%. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet. Our % of districts meeting the target for IRC >79% went down by 1.5%. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet.

26. District Performance on Indicator 5 On the other hand, our percent of districts meeting the target for IRC <40% went up by 9.5%. What can we make of this? Don’t know for sure, but it appears that we are working at moving kids from SC to Resource, but are not being as successful at moving kids from resource to regular class placements with appropriate supports. Something to think about and I would encourage you to look at your own district’s data. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet. On the other hand, our percent of districts meeting the target for IRC <40% went up by 9.5%. What can we make of this? Don’t know for sure, but it appears that we are working at moving kids from SC to Resource, but are not being as successful at moving kids from resource to regular class placements with appropriate supports. Something to think about and I would encourage you to look at your own district’s data. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet.

27. SPP 5 c

28. District Performance on Indicator 5 The third area in LRE is separate settings. As you can see, for both years we fell short of meeting our target and we are not seeing movement in the state percent of students placed in separate settings. Have not updated. Will take a while to pull this one together, and probably not all that pertinent anyway. Can you not use this slide? 7/13/11 mkcThe third area in LRE is separate settings. As you can see, for both years we fell short of meeting our target and we are not seeing movement in the state percent of students placed in separate settings. Have not updated. Will take a while to pull this one together, and probably not all that pertinent anyway. Can you not use this slide? 7/13/11 mkc

29. How can compliance impact performance on Indicator 5? Determining Placement/% of time in regular education (Accurate calculation and data reporting) Making sure IEP teams are trained on the requirements for determining LRE

30. SPP 11 Indicators 11 looks at Initial Evaluation timelines. This is one of the compliance indicators that has a target of 100%. While we are not meeting the 100%, we continue to have a relatively high percentage of evaluations completed in a timely manner. Indicators 11 looks at Initial Evaluation timelines. This is one of the compliance indicators that has a target of 100%. While we are not meeting the 100%, we continue to have a relatively high percentage of evaluations completed in a timely manner.

31. District Performance on Indicator 11 And we’re moving in the right direction out there in the districts. As you can see here, we went from 56.1% of districts meeting the target in 05-06 to 83.8% in 06-07. Keep it up guys, you’re doing great! Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From SPP_APR_REPORT_BY_DISTRICT spreadsheets.And we’re moving in the right direction out there in the districts. As you can see here, we went from 56.1% of districts meeting the target in 05-06 to 83.8% in 06-07. Keep it up guys, you’re doing great! Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From SPP_APR_REPORT_BY_DISTRICT spreadsheets.

32. SPP 12 One area in which we need to do some work is in Part C to B Transition and ensuring that children referred from the Part c system to the Part B system have an IEP in place by their 3rd birthday. As you can see here, we had some slippage from 05-06 to 06-07. We definitely want to turn this trend around. This is one area where we have to work on both sides of the fence—with Part C to ensure that the referrals are being made in a timely manner and with Part B to ensure that evaluations are done timely and the IEP is in place by the 3rd birthday. One area in which we need to do some work is in Part C to B Transition and ensuring that children referred from the Part c system to the Part B system have an IEP in place by their 3rd birthday. As you can see here, we had some slippage from 05-06 to 06-07. We definitely want to turn this trend around. This is one area where we have to work on both sides of the fence—with Part C to ensure that the referrals are being made in a timely manner and with Part B to ensure that evaluations are done timely and the IEP is in place by the 3rd birthday.

33. District Performance on Indicator 12 And we’re moving in the right direction out there in the districts. As you can see here, we went from 56.1% of districts meeting the target in 05-06 to 83.8% in 06-07. Keep it up guys, you’re doing great! Updated 7/12/11 mkc. From SPP_APR_REPORT_BY_DISTRICT spreadsheets. And we’re moving in the right direction out there in the districts. As you can see here, we went from 56.1% of districts meeting the target in 05-06 to 83.8% in 06-07. Keep it up guys, you’re doing great! Updated 7/12/11 mkc. From SPP_APR_REPORT_BY_DISTRICT spreadsheets.

34. SPP 15 Here’s another Indicator that has shown dramatic improvement—correction of non-compliance with 12 months. Everyone—DESE staff and district staff have worked very hard to improve this indicator and the results of that hard work are definitely showing! Here’s another Indicator that has shown dramatic improvement—correction of non-compliance with 12 months. Everyone—DESE staff and district staff have worked very hard to improve this indicator and the results of that hard work are definitely showing!

35. SPP 18 & 19

36. Other Compliance Updates IEE Speech Implementer Destruction of Records Top 5 “Watch Fors” — Findings from Child Complaints/Monitoring

37. Compliance Update TOP 5 “Watch Fors” (based on Child Complaints and Compliance Monitoring) Timelines IEP Implementation Discipline Notice of Actions Evaluations

38. Compliance Update

39. Compliance

40. Data System Management Update

41. Graduation Rate Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate = On-time graduates from the cohort / Adjusted cohort Adjusted Cohort includes first-time freshman from four years ago, plus transfers in, minus transfers out 41 If 21 and receive a diploma, categorize as a graduate. State graduation guidelines state: “ If 21 and not enough credits….. can be awarded a certificate of attendance….” (should be rare as can meet goals and objectives) Guidelines also indicate that students that complete their goals and objectives on their IEPs should be awarded a regular high school diploma. If 21 and receive a diploma, categorize as a graduate. State graduation guidelines state: “ If 21 and not enough credits….. can be awarded a certificate of attendance….” (should be rare as can meet goals and objectives) Guidelines also indicate that students that complete their goals and objectives on their IEPs should be awarded a regular high school diploma.

42. Graduation Rate New calculation will be included in the Special Education Profiles this year New calculation will be reported in the Report Cards this fall for all students; will be used for AYP purposes next year Preliminary calculations show a decrease in the graduation rates Report students as graduates when they receive their diplomas 42

43. Discipline Just a reminder…. ALL in-school and out-of-school suspensions and expulsions need to be reported… regardless of length 43

44. Educator, Course and Assignment All personnel employed or contracted are to be reported to DESE Teachers (including speech implementers) Paraprofessionals Ancillary (Therapists, diagnosticians, etc.) Administrators TA docs available at: http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/DataCoord/personnel.html 44

45. Speech/Language SLP Direct Service Instruction by SLPs Position Code 60 – Teacher Course Code 195500 – SLP Requires SLP Certification or Licensure SLP Direct Service Instruction by Implementers Position Code 60 – Teacher Course Code 195500 – SLP Requires Annual approval as implementer SLP Diagnostician Position Code 90 – Ancillary Course Code 889000 – Diagnostic Speech Language Requires SLP Certification or Licensure 45

46. Highly Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers Bachelors degree Special Education Certification Content area expertise IF teaching and giving grade/credit in core content area Courses evaluated for content area expertise Departmentalized instruction in Communication Arts, Math, Science & Social Studies (1956xx) Special education core content instruction (195000 & others) with self-contained (SC, LI or combined) delivery systems Special Ed Severe Developmental Delay (195300) 46 Let’s talk for a minute about Highly Qualified Teacher provisions. All sped teachers have to be highly qualified, and for many, that means having a bachelors degree and special education certification. IF the sped teachers are teaching and giving the grade in core content areas, they must also demonstrate content expertise. That can be done with certification in that area or by meeting HOUSSE rule requirements. We use the educator data and certification information to evaluate HQ status. The specific special education courses evaluated for content area expertise include those listed on the slide. Let’s talk for a minute about Highly Qualified Teacher provisions. All sped teachers have to be highly qualified, and for many, that means having a bachelors degree and special education certification. IF the sped teachers are teaching and giving the grade in core content areas, they must also demonstrate content expertise. That can be done with certification in that area or by meeting HOUSSE rule requirements. We use the educator data and certification information to evaluate HQ status. The specific special education courses evaluated for content area expertise include those listed on the slide.

47. Staff Assignment Reports New and improved reports coming soon Inappropriate certification and not highly qualified information Online HOUSSE forms Online checks for educator credentials 47

48. Graduate and Dropout Follow-up Follow-up categories 4-year college* 2-year college* Non-college* Military Employment* (competitive) Employment* (not competitive) Not available Unknown Other *SpedMetDefinition? Yes: If enrolled, enrolled for at least one complete term Yes: If employed, employed for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days No Had a lot of “No’s” in 2010-11 data 48

49. Data Summaries and TA 2010-11 Data Summaries were sent to each district in July 2010-11 Special Education District Profiles Preliminary versions available now Other TA on web at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/DataCoord/ Really quickly, just a few items I want to bring to your attention. Really quickly, just a few items I want to bring to your attention.

50. Statewide Student Information System Really not “statewide” Districts are not required to use the SIS State not contributing to the purchase Includes an optional IEP component Doesn’t change the MOSIS reporting requirements 50

51. Effective Practices Update

52. Effective Practices SPP/APR Indicators 1,2,13,14 (Post-secondary Transition) Indicators 3,4,5 (Performance, Discipline, LRE) Indicators 6,7 (ECSE LRE & Performance) Indicator 8 (Parent Involvement)

53. SPP 1 I do want to cover some of the more relevant indicators and share our state data with you. Also, as I mentioned earlier, we strongly encourage you to look at your district data on each of these indicators and know where you are as we use this data for many things, including focused monitoring and making district determinations.I do want to cover some of the more relevant indicators and share our state data with you. Also, as I mentioned earlier, we strongly encourage you to look at your district data on each of these indicators and know where you are as we use this data for many things, including focused monitoring and making district determinations.

54. District Performance on Indicator 1 Let’s look at it one more way…let’s look at the # and % of districts from year to year that met the targets. In 05-06 the target was 73%. 298 districts met the target, 138 districts did not meet the target for 68.3% of districts meeting the target. In 06-07, even though the target went up by 1%, the % of districts meeting the target also increased by 3.9%. Hooray!! You guys rock!! Updated 7/13/11. From district selection spreadsheet Let’s look at it one more way…let’s look at the # and % of districts from year to year that met the targets. In 05-06 the target was 73%. 298 districts met the target, 138 districts did not meet the target for 68.3% of districts meeting the target. In 06-07, even though the target went up by 1%, the % of districts meeting the target also increased by 3.9%. Hooray!! You guys rock!! Updated 7/13/11. From district selection spreadsheet

55. SPP 2 Indicator 2 looks at Dropouts. Again, without DOC. We’re not quite meeting our target here, but we are improving—we’re moving in the right direction. Indicator 2 looks at Dropouts. Again, without DOC. We’re not quite meeting our target here, but we are improving—we’re moving in the right direction.

56. District Performance on Indicator 2 How are districts doing? We improved on the % of districts meeting the dropout target by 6.2%. Again…moving in the right direction. Your efforts are paying off. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet How are districts doing? We improved on the % of districts meeting the dropout target by 6.2%. Again…moving in the right direction. Your efforts are paying off. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet

57. SPP 13 In 05-06, performance on postsecondary transition plans was one of our worst areas. But as you can see, while we’re not at our 100%, we are definitely moving in the right direction on Post-Secondary Transition plans. In 05-06, performance on postsecondary transition plans was one of our worst areas. But as you can see, while we’re not at our 100%, we are definitely moving in the right direction on Post-Secondary Transition plans.

58. District Performance on Indicator 13 While these still look like low percentages, the improvement is dramatic and very encouraging. There is lots of guidance and assistance out there for districts on students’ transition plans, including several sessions here at the lake. We anticipate that this Indicator will continue to show good improvement. Updated 7/11/11 mkc. From TRANS_BY_DISTRICT spreadsheets. While these still look like low percentages, the improvement is dramatic and very encouraging. There is lots of guidance and assistance out there for districts on students’ transition plans, including several sessions here at the lake. We anticipate that this Indicator will continue to show good improvement. Updated 7/11/11 mkc. From TRANS_BY_DISTRICT spreadsheets.

59. SPP 14

60. New Faces for “Old” Activities Dropout Prevention Transition Liaisons Models of Success

61. Dropout Prevention Staff from the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) and the Department invited schools to apply for technical assistance to reduce their dropout rate. Eight districts: Aurora R-VIII, Carl Junction R-I, Carthage R-IX, Jefferson City, Joplin, Neosho R-V, St. Louis City, and Webb City R-VII were selected to receive training and to serve as model schools for dropout-prevention programs. Technical assistance will continue during the 2010–11 school year, with schools monitoring dropout and graduation rates, student attendance, discipline, and course failure data.  The Department collaborated with the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities in an initiative to help schools reduce their dropout rate. Eight districts; Aurora R-VIII, Carl Junction R-I, Carthage R-IX, Jefferson City, Joplin, Neosho R-V, St. Louis City, and Webb City R-VII received technical assistance on dropout prevention and agreed to serve as model schools for dropout-prevention programs.   Training and technical assistance will continue during the 2010-11 school year with schools monitoring dropout and graduation rates, student attendance, discipline and course failure data.  The Department collaborated with the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities in an initiative to help schools reduce their dropout rate. Eight districts; Aurora R-VIII, Carl Junction R-I, Carthage R-IX, Jefferson City, Joplin, Neosho R-V, St. Louis City, and Webb City R-VII received technical assistance on dropout prevention and agreed to serve as model schools for dropout-prevention programs.   Training and technical assistance will continue during the 2010-11 school year with schools monitoring dropout and graduation rates, student attendance, discipline and course failure data. 

62. Dropout Prevention 2011–12 Continue to support existing model schools Missouri is one of four states to be selected to receive intensive technical assistance from the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) Add additional schools to the Model School Program Training and efforts targeted to ALL students

63. Transition Liaisons Transition Liaisons selected by an application process from individuals in the field There are currently 20 Transition Liaisons The liaisons will be available to present professional development to districts in their region Map of transition liaisons is on the jump drive Contact a liaison in your area if you have a professional development need they can assist you with.

64. Models of Success Recruit and develop models of success in post secondary transition The goal is to improve programs and services for students in MO by sharing with other transition professionals successful models for transition so they can be replicated Applications can be accessed at missouritransition.org Watch for SELS

65. New Activities Check and Connect Project SEARCH Post Secondary Evidence-Based Practices Website

66. Check and Connect An evidence based strategy for student engagement A dropout prevention tool Continuous assessment of student engagement through monitoring of student performance and progress indicators A natural fit with PBIS Partnership with school personnel, family members, and community service providers

67. Check and Connect Individualized attention to students A monitor is assigned to students to Regularly review their performance Intervenes when problems are identified. Advocate for students Coordinate services Provide ongoing feedback and encouragement and Emphasize the importance of staying in school  Contact RPDC for information about regional trainings

68. Project SEARCH National program begun at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital High school transition program for students 18–21 with developmental disabilities Provides education and training entirely in the workplace An alternative for students in their last year of high school Includes real work experience, training in employability and independent living

69. Project SEARCH Upon completion of the program students with significant intellectual disabilities placed in complex and rewarding jobs Brings changes to the business culture and attitudes towards those with disabilities Offers a range of jobs where these students can find success Missouri currently has one Project SEARCH site Will be taking applications for additional sites Watch for SELS message

70. Transition Outcomes Project (TOPs) Purpose — to develop and field test a process and a model to: Assist local districts in meeting the transition service requirements of IDEA 2004. Evaluate the effectiveness of providing and delivering transition services to students and families through the IEP process. Provide training and resource materials on the transition process for educators, administrators, adult agency personnel, parents and others. Improve graduation rates and post school outcomes of students with disabilities.

71. Sequence of Steps/Activities Phase 1 - Identification and Commitment from Local Districts Phase 2 - IEP Reviews Phase 3 - Report Findings, Set Target Goals/Timelines, Brainstorm Strategies Phase 4 - Implementation and Follow Along Phase 5 - Follow-up Reviews/Report of Final Results

72. Transition Outcome Project Currently have 110 schools Goal is to scale up to all Missouri Schools Trainings are available regionally to Missouri Districts Contact RPDC Consultants

73. Post Secondary Evidence-Based Practices Access to an interactive web based system to assist with identifying areas of strengths and needs Online self-assessment tools for transition Improvement planning tools Assist in creating a comprehensive district transition improvement plan Provides access to high quality transition resources, evidence based practices and improvement activities linked directly to identified needs of the district.

74. Promising Resources for Transition Missouri Connections Missouri Options 

75. What is Missouri Connections? Missouri Connections is an online resource sponsored by the DESE Designed to guide students in grades 7–16 through the career planning process Provides for career awareness, college and career exploration Directs preparation for transition into postsecondary education and the world of work

76. MissouriConnections.org An Internet-based one-stop shop for: Career assessment and awareness Educational and occupational exploration Postsecondary planning Career preparation and management Job placement

77. Missouri Connections Provides Interactive career exploration features Awareness of the 6 Career Paths and 16 Career Clusters Tools for creating a plan of study based on Missouri courses and requirements Expanded information on educational options and degree choices after high school Information on postsecondary education and career options Administrative options for schools to upload course lists and custom career plans of study

78. How to Access Missouri Connections Students parents, guidance counselors, and educators can use the online system at no charge at:  www.missouriconnections.org. For questions or more information, contact TOM Schlimpert at 573-751-6875

79. Missouri Options Target students who have the capabilities to complete Missouri high school graduation requirements but: Lack the credits needed to graduate with their class Are at risk of leaving school without a high school diploma Targets those students who are 17 years of age or older At least one year behind their cohort

80. Missouri Options Participation is voluntary for schools and students and certain requirements must be met Can continue to receive average daily attendance funds for the participating students., students will remain in school and are not counted as dropouts when it is time to take the GED Tests. Successful participants are then counted as High School Graduates. For more information, call Dale Wimer at 573-751-3190

81. SPP 3 a & b I’m not going to talk about Indicators 3a—Districts meeting AYP. Instead, I’m going to show you some other MAP data for swd that I feel is more meaningful. As you can see for Indicator 3b, our MAP participation rate continues to be high. I’m not going to talk about Indicators 3a—Districts meeting AYP. Instead, I’m going to show you some other MAP data for swd that I feel is more meaningful. As you can see for Indicator 3b, our MAP participation rate continues to be high.

82. SPP 3 c I have some charts here on MAP CA and Math for percent in the TOP 2, but I’m not going to cover them here. I’m going to skip to a couple of other charts. I have some charts here on MAP CA and Math for percent in the TOP 2, but I’m not going to cover them here. I’m going to skip to a couple of other charts.

83. District Performance on Indicator 3 Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From MAP 2010 spreadsheetUpdated 7/13/11 mkc. From MAP 2010 spreadsheet

84. District Performance on Indicator 3 Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From MAP 2010 spreadsheet Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From MAP 2010 spreadsheet

85. Missouri Communication Arts This shows state MAP data as of 8/8/08 for MAP CA for all grades for the past three years. On the left are the percents for students with IEPs, on the right are the %s for all students. Any cells with green, are cells where there has been improvement from one year to the next. If it is yellow, there was no improvement and if red, there was slippage (or a decline in performance). As you can see at a quick glance, for all but one grade (11), students with IEPs have improved performance statewide each year. We are, again headed in the right direction and we are “closing the gap.” Mary’s note: updated data 7/12/11, but not the presenter notes. I dropped grade 11 due to end of course tests.This shows state MAP data as of 8/8/08 for MAP CA for all grades for the past three years. On the left are the percents for students with IEPs, on the right are the %s for all students. Any cells with green, are cells where there has been improvement from one year to the next. If it is yellow, there was no improvement and if red, there was slippage (or a decline in performance). As you can see at a quick glance, for all but one grade (11), students with IEPs have improved performance statewide each year. We are, again headed in the right direction and we are “closing the gap.” Mary’s note: updated data 7/12/11, but not the presenter notes. I dropped grade 11 due to end of course tests.

86. Missouri Mathematics This chart shows the same information for MAP Math. Again, performance for students with disabilities is heading in the right direction and in many cases, the gap between IEP students and all students is closing. Updated 7/12/11 – dropped high school grade due to EOC.This chart shows the same information for MAP Math. Again, performance for students with disabilities is heading in the right direction and in many cases, the gap between IEP students and all students is closing. Updated 7/12/11 – dropped high school grade due to EOC.

87. SPP 4 a

88. SPP 5 a & b Indicators 5 a, b, and c look at placements in the LRE. As you can see, we have to look at Inside Regular Class >79%, Inside Regular Class <40% (self-contained) and Separate Settings. We don’t have to report on Resource, or Inside Regular Class between 40 and 80% of the time. As you can see, we are falling slightly short of meeting our targets for IRC >79%. For SC (IRC <40%) we missed the target slightly last year, but made the target this year. We are being successful at moving students out of more restrictive settings statewide. How are districts doing? Indicators 5 a, b, and c look at placements in the LRE. As you can see, we have to look at Inside Regular Class >79%, Inside Regular Class <40% (self-contained) and Separate Settings. We don’t have to report on Resource, or Inside Regular Class between 40 and 80% of the time. As you can see, we are falling slightly short of meeting our targets for IRC >79%. For SC (IRC <40%) we missed the target slightly last year, but made the target this year. We are being successful at moving students out of more restrictive settings statewide. How are districts doing?

89. District Performance on Indicator 5 Our % of districts meeting the target for IRC >79% went down by 1.5%. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet. Our % of districts meeting the target for IRC >79% went down by 1.5%. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet.

90. District Performance on Indicator 5 On the other hand, our percent of districts meeting the target for IRC <40% went up by 9.5%. What can we make of this? Don’t know for sure, but it appears that we are working at moving kids from SC to Resource, but are not being as successful at moving kids from resource to regular class placements with appropriate supports. Something to think about and I would encourage you to look at your own district’s data. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet. On the other hand, our percent of districts meeting the target for IRC <40% went up by 9.5%. What can we make of this? Don’t know for sure, but it appears that we are working at moving kids from SC to Resource, but are not being as successful at moving kids from resource to regular class placements with appropriate supports. Something to think about and I would encourage you to look at your own district’s data. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From District Selection spreadsheet.

91. SPP 5 c

92. Tiered Systems of Support Professional Learning Communities (PLC) Response to Intervention (RTI) Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SW-PBS) These models work together to build educational systems that are comprised of a continuum of supports for the purpose of increasing student outcomes. These models work together to build educational systems that are comprised of a continuum of supports for the purpose of increasing student outcomes.

93. Professional Learning Communities (PLC) The state PLC school-improvement model focuses on increasing student achievement by building the capacity of school personnel to create and sustain the conditions that promote high levels of student and adult learning. For information about Missouri PLC, go to dese.mo.gov/divteachqual/sii/prolearning.

94. Response to Intervention (RTI) Missouri defines RTI as the integration of assessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement. With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions, and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness (NCRTI, rti4success.org). See dese.mo.gov/3tieredmodels for more information regarding RTI in Missouri.

95. Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (SW-PBS) SW-PBS is a process for creating safer and more effective schools by structuring the learning environment to support the academic and social success of all students. The process supports the adoption and long-term implementation of efficient and effective discipline throughout the school environment. To learn more about the Missouri SW-PBS initiative, visit pbismissouri.org.

96. You may not be able to see this chart very well (and this chart is available on our website), but what it shows is all of the 20 Performance and Compliance Indicators for which we are responsible, as well as the targets for each year. For 05-06 and 06-07 the chart also shows our actual performance on the indicator for that year. Some of the indicators are more related to student performance—such as those related to graduation and drop out rates, participation and performance on state assessments (MAP and MAP A), rates of suspension/expulsion, services in the least restrictive environment, parent involvement etc. Some of the indicators are more related to compliance, such as timelines for completing initial evaluations and evaluations for children coming to Early Childhood Special Education from First Steps, postsecondary transition goals and services, and correction of non-compliance. But regardless of whether the indicators are related to student results or compliance or timely and accurate data, the entire SPP is designed with the purpose of ultimately improving outcomes for students with disabilities. You will be hearing a lot about improvement planning from us. The SPP is really the Division’s improvement plan in that we have established targets for the state and have identified activities that we anticipate will enable the state (and local districts) to meet the targets. The SPP and APR are out work. Second number is the graduation or dropout rate excluding data from Department of Corrections TBD indicates that targets will be set in future updates of the State Performance Plan For more information, see Missouri State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report for Part B at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/SPPpage.html. Second number is the graduation or dropout rate excluding data from Department of Corrections TBD indicates that targets will be set in future updates of the State Performance Plan For more information, see Missouri State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report for Part B at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/SPPpage.html. You may not be able to see this chart very well (and this chart is available on our website), but what it shows is all of the 20 Performance and Compliance Indicators for which we are responsible, as well as the targets for each year. For 05-06 and 06-07 the chart also shows our actual performance on the indicator for that year. Some of the indicators are more related to student performance—such as those related to graduation and drop out rates, participation and performance on state assessments (MAP and MAP A), rates of suspension/expulsion, services in the least restrictive environment, parent involvement etc. Some of the indicators are more related to compliance, such as timelines for completing initial evaluations and evaluations for children coming to Early Childhood Special Education from First Steps, postsecondary transition goals and services, and correction of non-compliance. But regardless of whether the indicators are related to student results or compliance or timely and accurate data, the entire SPP is designed with the purpose of ultimately improving outcomes for students with disabilities. You will be hearing a lot about improvement planning from us. The SPP is really the Division’s improvement plan in that we have established targets for the state and have identified activities that we anticipate will enable the state (and local districts) to meet the targets. The SPP and APR are out work. Second number is the graduation or dropout rate excluding data from Department of Corrections TBD indicates that targets will be set in future updates of the State Performance PlanFor more information, see Missouri State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report for Part B at http://www.dese.mo.gov/divspeced/SPPpage.html.

97. Again, you probably can’t see this very well, but this is a summary chart of each of the 20 Indicators, our state performance for 05-06 through 09-10 and whether we met our target for each year and made progress or slipped from the previous APR. In the interest of time, I’m not going to cover all of the Indicators here, but all of our data is on the web, and I would encourage you to go out and look at it. Again, you probably can’t see this very well, but this is a summary chart of each of the 20 Indicators, our state performance for 05-06 through 09-10 and whether we met our target for each year and made progress or slipped from the previous APR. In the interest of time, I’m not going to cover all of the Indicators here, but all of our data is on the web, and I would encourage you to go out and look at it.

98. Early Childhood Outcomes ECSE entry and exit data is submitted through MOSIS and is due each year with June child count Required Data Submission form dese.mo.gov/divspeced/ECOtraining.html Training materials

99. SPP 8 I won’t say too much here about Indicator 8, Parent Involvement, as we only have two years of data and we reset out target last year, so we don’t want to draw any conclusions as yet statewide. However, as we heard in the Law Conference yesterday, we know that Parent Involvement is an important area for the state and districts to foster as it is an area that can make a big difference in student performance. I won’t say too much here about Indicator 8, Parent Involvement, as we only have two years of data and we reset out target last year, so we don’t want to draw any conclusions as yet statewide. However, as we heard in the Law Conference yesterday, we know that Parent Involvement is an important area for the state and districts to foster as it is an area that can make a big difference in student performance.

100. District Performance on Indicator 8 I won’t say too much here about Indicator 8, Parent Involvement, as we only have two years of data and we reset out target last year, so we don’t want to draw any conclusions as yet statewide. However, as we heard in the Law Conference yesterday, we know that Parent Involvement is an important area for the state and districts to foster as it is an area that can make a big difference in student performance. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From Parent AQ spreadsheets. I won’t say too much here about Indicator 8, Parent Involvement, as we only have two years of data and we reset out target last year, so we don’t want to draw any conclusions as yet statewide. However, as we heard in the Law Conference yesterday, we know that Parent Involvement is an important area for the state and districts to foster as it is an area that can make a big difference in student performance. Updated 7/13/11 mkc. From Parent AQ spreadsheets.

101. Parent Involvement and Engagement Models of Success for Parent Involvement DESE work to increase activities in this area Information newsletters to districts in the area of Parent Involvement and Engagement Missouri Parent Act (MPACT) is available for training in this area. Contact Mary Kay Savage for more information at 800-743-7634.

102. Technical Assistance and Professional Development Improvement Activities for each SPP Indicator designed to lend support to districts to meet SPP targets Scale up of several programs and initiatives Addition of RPDC staff for training and support

103. Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDC) Region 1 – Southeast RPDC, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau Region 2 – Heart of Missouri RPDC, University of Missouri – Columbia Region 3 – Kansas City RPDC, University of Missouri – Kansas City Region 4 – Northeast Missouri RPDC, Truman State University, Kirksville Region 5 – Northwest Missouri RPDC, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville Region 6 – South Central RPDC, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla Region 7 – Southwest Missouri RPDC, Missouri State University, Springfield Region 8 – St. Louis RPDC, in partnership with Cooperating School District (CSD) Region 9 – Central RPDC, Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg Region 10 – Missouri Western RPDC, Missouri Western State University, St. Joseph

104. RPDC Staff Blind Skills Specialists Compliance Consultants Improvement Consultants PLC Resource Specialists SW-PBS Consultants

105. Assistive Technology Missouri Assistive Technology offers programs and services—such as the Assistive Technology Request (ATR) program for schools and the Equipment Technology Consortium (ETC) loan program—that can help Missouri schools receive the assistive technology their students with disabilities need in the classroom. Please visit at.mo.gov for more information on Missouri Assistive Technology. Please refer to the USB drive provided for a MoAT resource booklet titled “Help Your Students Learn Better!” to find out about programs and services that can assist Missouri’s students with disabilities in getting the most out of their education. Please refer to the USB drive provided for a MoAT resource booklet titled “Help Your Students Learn Better!” to find out about programs and services that can assist Missouri’s students with disabilities in getting the most out of their education.

106. QUESTIONS???

107. Thank You! Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

  • Login