1 / 68

State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data, the NYC Special Education Reform…

State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data, the NYC Special Education Reform…. State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data, the NYC Special Education Reform… and you!. PDI 08-23-11 Jan McDonald and Alecia Harrington.

brendon-mawe
Download Presentation

State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data, the NYC Special Education Reform…

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data,the NYC Special Education Reform… State Performance Indicators, Special Education Data,the NYC Special Education Reform…and you! PDI 08-23-11 Jan McDonald and Alecia Harrington Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 1

  2. The Special Education Reform: the School and Central Work Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 2

  3. State Performance Plan Indicators* (SPPI) #s 1-15 *Items in red are out of compliance and have been since 2005-06, the year the system began. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 3

  4. Indicators 1 and 2: Graduation and Dropout Rates Progress we have made… Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 4

  5. FOUR YEAR GRADUATION RATE AMONG STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IS RISING Students with Disabilities 30.7 26.6 25.1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Graduation Rate Graduation Rate w/ August Graduates Note: Totals reflect data available at the time of reporting provided by NYS; August graduate data is only available for years 2008-2010. 5

  6. 5- AND 6-YEAR GRADUATION RATES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES HAVE ALSO INCREASED Students with Disabilities Five-Year Graduation Rate Six-Year Graduation Rate 2001 Cohort 2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort 2004 Cohort 2005 Cohort 2001 Cohort 2002 Cohort 2003 Cohort 2004 Cohort Percent of Students in a Cohort Graduating from High School in 5 and 6 Years 6 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 6 6

  7. MORE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES w/ IEPs EARN REGENTS DIPLOMAS Percent of Students Graduating from High School in 4 Years Student with Disabilities 30.7% 26.6% 22.5% 18.5% Diploma Type 18.3% 17.1% Adv. Regents Regents Local 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Notes: Graduation rate totals may not equal total of diploma types due to rounding. Totals reflect data available at the time of reporting provided by NYS; August graduate data is only available for years 2009-2010. 7

  8. The percentage of students w/ IEPs earning Local, Regents, or Advanced Regents Diplomas is also increasing for students graduating in five years or six years Diploma Type H H H H H H H H H h Five Years Six Years 34.5% 32.6% 30.9% 30.7% 26.7% 27.2% 21.5% 22.7% 20.5% Note: Totals reflect data available at the time of reporting provided by NYS; August graduate data is only available for cohorts 2005-2006. The cohort graduation rate is presented at the top of the columns. The overall rate may not equal the sum of each diploma type due to rounding 8 8

  9. DROPOUT RATES for SwDs FALL Students with Disabilities Rr R R R R R R R R R Percentage of Dropouts 05 06 07 08 09 10 9 9 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 9

  10. Accountability Alignment to Improve Outcomes/Indicators • Use the NYS Performance Plan Indicators (SPPI) as a consistent set of metrics against which we measure ourselves. • Align the DOE accountability structures and incentives with the goals of the Special Education Reform and the SPPI indicators. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

  11. Indicators 1 and 2: Graduation and Dropout Rates – Actions we have taken… • Schools are incentivized through the Progress Report (PR) to work hard to graduate students with IEPs Beginning with the 2009-10 PR….: • all students with IEPs receive at least double the graduation weight for graduating with a Local Diploma or higher. The graduation weights are as follows: • SETSS – double weighting • ICT/CTT – triple weighting • Self-Contained – quadruple weighting • the primary focus of the additional credit measures shifted from credit accumulation to graduation, specifically for groups of students that have historically graduated at lower rates than the City overall (including SwDs). Schools that were successful in helping these students graduate received additional credit. • 29 - D75 schools with students in grades 3-8 standardized assessment programs received Progress Reports and grades. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 11

  12. Indicators 1 and 2: Graduation and Dropout Rates – next steps… For the 2010-11 PR: • The above incentives will continue • Progress Report grade distributions for D75 schools will be the same as for non-D75 elementary and middle schools. • We are adding graduation and dropout rates to the Compliance Checklist that is a part of the Principals Performance Review (PPR) • We have a proposal in to include SWD graduation and dropout data in additional parts of the new Principals Performance Review (PPR), including requiring the principal to include SWD graduation in their goals if their data are not good. • Beginning next year, Quality Reviews (QR) will incorporate SWD graduation and dropout data as a routine part of the data packets sent to reviewers and reviewers will be required to observe SpEd classes. • All reviewers doing Quality Reviews have received training this year and will receive additional training next year. • D75 schools will be evaluated on all of the same rubrics as Community Schools Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 12

  13. Accountability Tools: Tools to help schools check their progress with students with disabilities 13 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 13

  14. Accountability Tools: Tools to help schools check their progress with students with disabilities 14 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 14

  15. Indicator 3: Performance of Statewide Assessments Progress we have made… Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 15

  16. WHEN THE SCORE USED TO DEFINE ‘PROFICIENCY’ REMAINS CONSTANT OVER THE YEARS,STUDENTS CONTINUE TO SHOW PROGRESS AS WELL Percent of Students with IEPs Meeting or Exceeding State Standards (Scoring at Level 3 or 4) in Grades 3-8 by 2009’s and 2010’s Cut Scores: CITYWIDE ENGLISH MATH % reaching proficiency using 2010’s cut scores % reaching proficiency using 2009’s cut scores Note: Starting in 2010, NYSED changed the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels, increasing the number of questions students needed to answer correctly to meet proficiency. 16

  17. MEAN SCALE SCORES FOR STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS Mean Scale Scores for Grades 3-8 Students w/o IEPs Students with IEPs 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels.  In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions.

  18. PERCENT STUDENTS AT LEVELS 3+4 IN MATHEMATICS Percent of Students in Grades 3-8 Meeting or Exceeding State Standards (Scoring at Levels 3 & 4) Students w/o IEPs Students with IEPs 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels.  In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions.

  19. MEAN SCALE SCORES FOR STUDENTS IN ELA Mean Scale Scores for Grades 3-8 Students w/o IEPs Students with IEPs 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels.  In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions.

  20. PERCENT OF STUDENTS AT LEVELS 3+4 IN ELA Percent of Students in Grades 3-8 Meeting or Exceeding State Standards (Scoring at Levels 3 & 4) Students w/o IEPs Students with IEPs 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels.  In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions.

  21. WHILE ABSOLUTE PROFICIENCY IS DOWN UNDER THE NEW TEST STANDARDS, SINCE 2006 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES HAVE MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 2006-2011 CHANGE IN ACHIEVEMENT CITYWIDE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES MEAN SCALE SCORES SWDs’ 2011 proficiency by new state standards: 14.2% in ELA, 27.3% in Math. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

  22. 2010-2011 PERCENT LEVELS 3+4 FOR STUDENTS with DISABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS Percent Meeting/Exceeding State Standards (Levels 3+4) 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 Grade 3 +1.9 pts. Grade 4 + 2.9 pts. Grade 5 + 3.6 pts. Grade 6 + 4.8 pts. Grade 7 + 4.0 pts. Grade 8 + 7.1 pts. Grades 3-8 + 4.1 pts. In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels.  In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions.

  23. 2010-2011 PERCENT LEVELS 3+4 FOR STUDENTS with DISABILITIES IN ELA Percent Meeting/Exceeding State Standards (Levels 3+4) 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 10 11 Grade 3 +1.0 pts. Grade 4 + 3.6 pts. Grade 5 +1.2 pts. Grade 6 + 3.3 pts. Grade 7 - 0.4 pts. Grade 8 - 0.3 pts. Grades 3-8 +1.4 pts. In 2010, NYSED increased the scale score required to meet each of the proficiency levels.  In addition, in 2011, NYSED lengthened the exams by increasing the number of test questions..

  24. Indicator 3: Performance of Statewide Assessments – Actions we have taken… • Schools are incentivized through the Progress Report (PR) to improve the scores of students with IEPs on Statewide Assessments Beginning with the 2009-10 PR: • Scores of students with IEPs received differential weightings --adjustment factors for Special Education students were based on program recommendations. • The peer index of a school was adjusted to reflect the population of SwDs in the school to make a fairer comparison of schools. • D75 schools received Progress Reports and grades. Schools were evaluated based on the growth and performance of their Standard Assessment Students Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 24

  25. Indicator 3: Performance of Statewide Assessments – next steps… For 2010-11: • The PR incentives will continue as in 2009-10 • Progress Report grade distributions for D75 schools will be the same as for non-D75 elementary and middle schools. • DSWDELL is now working with Assessment Portfolio to develop citywide student assessments and will continue to play an integral role in the Common Core Standards work, the Teacher Assessment work and remain a key player in the system-wide instructional Priorities. • RTT Coaches will work with schools on improving outcomes Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 25

  26. Indicator 4: Suspensions Where we are… Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 26

  27. In 09-10, African American students in NYC were 3.12 to 4.4 times as likely to be given long-term suspensions than other subgroups. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 27

  28. Indicator 4: Suspensions Actions we have taken… Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 28

  29. Outline of Action 2010-2011 PBIS Training FBA and BIP Training Planning for Systemwide Training in PBIS/FBA/BIP/MDR TAC-D Supports 29 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

  30. PBIS Training • 93 NYC schools have completed PBIS Universal Training in the last two years. • 5 Behavior Specialists have trained schools in five boroughs, by each grade level, in each cluster and 20 CFN’s. Specialists have targeted 29 schools that have been cited for spp4b. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 30

  31. PBIS Schools Trained in 5 Boroughs The pie chart represents the number of schools in each borough that have completed PBIS Universal Training. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 31

  32. Throughout all Grade Levels The data represents the number of schools at each grade level that have completed PBIS Universal Training. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 32

  33. PBIS Trainings by Cluster Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 33

  34. PBIS Trained Schools through CFN’s Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 34

  35. Targeted SPP 4B Schools Receiving PBIS Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 35

  36. PBIS Schools with the highest rates of disproportion saw reductions in suspensions and referrals and an increase in attendance N=11 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 36

  37. Comparison of the 91 NYC Schools Cited by NYSED for Disproportionality (SPPI 4b) Suspensions PBIS Schools Non-PBIS Schools Initial Referrals N=11 N=80 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 37

  38. FBA and BIP Training and Planning for Systemwide Training in PBIS/FBA/BIP/MDR One cluster and all DSWDELL instructional staff received training in FBA and BIP Plan developed for systemwide training in PBIS/FBA/BIP/MDR 38 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

  39. TAC-D Supports PBIS Training for 6 individual schools, with support and knowledge sharing to 6 networks, 6 clusters, and Central DOE Examining: Policies, practices, and beliefs in: Intervention services School organization Instructional staff capacity Curriculum and instruction External community 39 Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners

  40. Indicator 4: Suspensions – next steps… For 2010-11: • Training in PBIS (overview) /FBA/BIP/MDR for: • 66 Race to the Top coaches • Supervisors of psychology • Observations of MDRs by those trained with feedback directly following to MDR teams (RTT coaches) • Continued development of DOE cross-divisional behavioral supports • Continued work with TAC-D Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 40

  41. Indicator 5: LRE/MRE Where we are… Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 41

  42. IDEA Part B Comparison of State Level LRE Data (DAC- IDEA Data, 2008) Percent of students, ages 6 through 21, receiving special education services outside the regular class setting more than 60 percent of the school day. This definition includes students with disabilities in public schools, separate alternative schools, residential facilities. parentally placed in private schools, correctional facilities, and home or hospital environments. State Performance Plan Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment – School Age 48. Hawaii 28.93 49. New Jersey 29.19 50. New Hampshire 30.26 51. New York 32.46 52. District of Columbia 51.96

  43. Indicator 5: LRE – Actions we have taken…or are planned • Beginning with the 2010-2011 Progress Report schools will receive extra credit for moving students to LRE • We have placed a new LRE metric on the Compliance Checklist for the Principals Performance Review (PPR) • We provided professional development to all schools on IEP development with a focus on LRE and flexibility of programming • We have some preliminary qualitative and anecdotal data reflecting improvements in flexibility of programming across the continuum by schools engaged in Phase 1 of the Special Education Reform Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 43

  44. Indicator 11: Timely Evaluations Where we are….and progress we have made Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 44

  45. Special Education Scorecard Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 45

  46. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 46

  47. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 47

  48. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 48

  49. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 49

  50. Division of Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners 50

More Related