Oec hot topics
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 168

OEC HOT TOPICS!!! PowerPoint PPT Presentation


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

OEC HOT TOPICS!!!. State Performance Plan Annual Performance Report. Results, Trends, and General Supervision Activities. The SPP and APR. SPP – State Performance Plan that shows baseline data (1 st year of reporting), then rigorous targets for the “life” of the SPP (along 20 Indicators)

Download Presentation

OEC HOT TOPICS!!!

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


Oec hot topics

OEC HOT TOPICS!!!


State performance plan annual performance report

State Performance PlanAnnual Performance Report

Results, Trends, and General Supervision Activities


The spp and apr

The SPP and APR

  • SPP – State Performance Plan that shows baseline data (1st year of reporting), then rigorous targets for the “life” of the SPP (along 20 Indicators)

  • APR – Annual Performance Report submitted Feb. 1st that describes whether or not the state achieved/met the targets outlined in the SPP


Apr reporting years

APR Reporting Years

  • For Indicators 3, 5-14, 16-19, & 20, the APR is based on data for the preceding school year:

    • Feb. 1, 2010 (based on FFY08; 08-09 school year)

    • Feb. 1, 2011 (based on FFY09; 09-10)

    • Feb. 1, 2012 (based on FFY10; 10-11)


Apr reporting years cont d

APR Reporting Years, cont’d

  • Indicators 1-2, & 4A & B are based on the two prior school years:

    • Feb 1, 2010 (based on FFY07; 07-08 school year)

    • Feb. 1, 2011 (based on FFY08; 08-09 s.y.)

    • Feb. 1, 2012 (based on FFY09; 09-10 s.y.)

  • Ind. 15 is based on 2+ preceding school years


Performance vs compliance

“Performance” vs. “Compliance”

  • “Performance” indicators are those for which the OSEP is interested in the state setting “rigorous,” measurable targets, based on baseline and historical performance. These percentages range in value.

  • “Compliance” indicators are those for which the OSEP has mandated either a “0%” or “100%” target for states to meet (Ind. 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for LEAs and the state; and 20 for the state). These indicators also relate to child-entitlement regulations (i.e., all or none).


Performance vs compliance1

“Performance” vs. “Compliance”

  • “Performance” indicators are those for which the OSEP is interested in the state setting “rigorous,” measurable targets, based on baseline and historical performance. These percentages range in value.

  • “Compliance” indicators are those for which the OSEP has mandated either a “0%” or “100%” target for states to meet (Ind. 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 for LEAs and the state; and 20 for the state). These indicators also relate to child-entitlement regulations (i.e., all or none).


Ffy 2009 spp changes

FFY 2009 SPP Changes

  • Required to collect data and report for Part B Indicator 4B (Discipline by Race/Ethnicity), using FFY 2008 Data

  • Required to collect and report data for Part B Indicator 13 (Post-secondary transition services)

  • Required to collect and report data for Part B Indicator 14 (Post-secondary outcomes)

  • Required to establish and extend targets for 2 additional years (FFY 2011 and FFY 2012)


Indicator 1

Indicator 1

Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.


Indicator 1 ffy 2009 graduation rate

Indicator 1FFY 2009 Graduation Rate

  • State Target: Current year must meet the GOAL of 88.3%, or the current year must meet the TARGET OBJECTIVE of 78%, or the current year is 2 percentage points higher than the previous year, or the current year is 2 percentage points higher than the most recent three-year average (42.67%) including current year. NOT MET

  • Actual Performance: 42.9% (decrease from 46.1%)

  • Data Source: NCLB AYP Report for SC


Indicator 2

Indicator 2

Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.


Indicator 2 ffy 2009 dropout rate

Indicator 2FFY 2009 Dropout Rate

  • State Target: 5.6%

    • Using new data source as required by OSEP, using ESEA

    • FFY 2008 Baseline was 5.6%

    • FFY 2009 Actual was 5.2%

    • MET

  • Data Source: SCDE Federal Dropout report.


Indicator 3

Indicator 3

Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments:

  • A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup.


Indicator 3 cont

Indicator 3 cont.

  • B. Participation rate for children with IEPs

  • C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards in ELA and Math


Ffy 2009 indicator 3 a

FFY 2009 Indicator 3 A

  • Districts meeting AYP for students with disabilities

    • State Target: 66.6% or above

    • Actual Performance: 2.3% (n=2) NOT MET

  • Data Source: AYP calculations

    • Revised targets to use AYP data

    • Targets not set by subgroup (SC)


Ffy 2009 indicator 3 b

FFY 2009 Indicator 3 B

  • Participation Rate of Students with Disabilities:

    • State Target: Above 95%

    • Actual Performance-Math: 98.23% MET

    • Actual Performance-ELA: 98.31% MET

  • Data Source: Office of Data Analysis and Mgmt.


Ffy 2009 indicator 3 c

FFY 2009 Indicator 3 C

  • Performance rate of students with disabilities

  • State Target Math: 58.8% (3-8) and 71.3% (HS)

  • Actual Performance Math: 58.5% and 54.1%

  • State Target ELA: 57.8% (3-8) and 70.0% (HS)

  • Actual Performance ELA: 46.0% and 54.1%

  • NOT MET ON ALL

  • Data Source – NCLB AYP Report for SC


Indicators 4a and 4b

Indicators 4A and 4B

  • For FFY 2009, states were required to collect and report data for Part B Indicator 4B, using data from the 2008-2009 school year.

  • 4B is a “compliance” indicator

  • Given this change, and limitations to the old definition of 4A, SC decided to change its definition of “significant discrepancy” for 4A while crafting the new definition of 4B


Regulatory citation

Regulatory Citation

  • 34 CFR § 300.170 Suspension and expulsion rates.

  • (a) General. The SEA must examine data, including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities—

    • (1) Among LEAs in the State; or

    • (2) Compared to the rates for nondisabled children within those agencies.


Regulatory citation1

Regulatory Citation

  • (b) Review and revision of policies. If the discrepancies described in paragraph (a) of this section are occurring, the SEA must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with the Act.


Data source

Data Source

  • Data collected on Table 5 of Information Collection 1820-0621 (Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More than 10 Days). Discrepancy can be computed by either comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs to rates for nondisabled children within the LEA or by comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs among LEAs within the State.

  • Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.


Table 5

Table 5


4a measurement

4A Measurement

Percent = [A divided by B] times 100

A = # of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs

divided by the

B= # of districts in the State

times 100


4b measurement

4B Measurement

Percent = [(# of districts that have:

(a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and

(b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards)

divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.


4a target reporting year

4A Target & Reporting Year

  • FFY 2009 SPP (due 2/1/11) – use FFY 2008 (2008-2009) data

    • establish baseline, targets, and review/revise improvement activities

  • FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) – use FFY 2009 (2009-2010) data


4b target reporting year

4B Target & Reporting Year

  • Target is 0% (Compliance Indicator)

  • FFY 2009 SPP (due 2/1/11) – use FFY 2008 (2008-2009) data

    • establish baseline, targets, and review/revise improvement activities

  • FFY 2010 APR (due 2/1/12) – use FFY 2009 (2009-2010) data


Spp apr reporting

SPP/APR Reporting

  • If discrepancies occurred and the district with discrepancies had policies, procedures or practices that contributed to the significant discrepancy and that do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, describe how the State ensured that such policies, procedures, and practices were revised to comply with applicable requirements.


Indicator 4

Indicator 4


Relative risk ratio 4a

Relative Risk Ratio (4A)

  • Calculates the risk for ONE LEA

  • Calculates the risk for all other LEAs

  • Divide the ONE LEA by all other LEAs

  • Compares the risk for one LEA to the risks of all other LEAs within the state.

  • If the relative risk is greater than 2.50, then the district is identified as having “significant discrepancy” for Part B 4A and must review policies, procedures and practices (i.e., the Indicator 4 Self-Assessment Rubric)


Weighted risk 4b

Weighted Risk (4B)

  • WRR adjusts for district variability in race/ethnic groups so that districts came be compared equally by accounting for variability among ethnic-makeup of districts

  • Compares the risk for one race ethnicity to that of all other ethnicities within the LEA, and weighted for cross LEA comparability

  • Must have subgroup size of 10


4b issue

4B Issue

  • Keep in mind that 4B is two-fold:

    • A numerical “trigger” defined by the WRR (with n-size applied). If the LEA has a WRR greater than 2.50, then the LEA is defined as having “significant discrepancy” for Part B 4B, and must review Policies, Procedures, & Practices (i.e., Indicator 4 Self-Assessment Rubric)

  • Only if they meet the trigger & their P/P/P do not comply do they get a “finding”


Indicator 4 follow up

Indicator 4 Follow-Up

  • If an LEA is found to have “significant discrepancy for Indicator 4A or 4B, they must complete a comprehensive rubric identifying whether or not they followed specific regulatory requirements and provide information about where the evidence could be found.

  • If an LEA indicates that it has failed to correctly implement the regulatory requirements, it would be issued a finding of noncompliance and must ensure both systemic and individual correction.


Ffy 2009 indicator 4a

FFY 2009 Indicator 4A

  • Rates of suspension and expulsion:

    Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and

  • SC Baseline: 5.68% (n=5)

  • Data Source: Table 5, FFY 2008

    and Self Assessment Rubric


Indicator 4b

Indicator 4B

  • Percent of districts that have:

    • a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and

    • policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.


Ffy 2009 indicator 4b

FFY 2009 Indicator 4B

  • State Compliance Target: 0%

  • SC Actual 2.27% (n=2) NOT MET

  • Data Source: FFY 2008 Table 5 and District Self Assessment Rubric


Indicator 5

Indicator 5

Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:

  • Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;

  • Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and

  • In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.


Ffy 2009 indicator 5 lre a

FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE A

  • Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day

  • State Target: 53%

  • Actual Performance: 56.2% MET

  • Data Source: Table 3


Ffy 2009 indicator 5 lre b

FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE B

  • Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day

  • State Target:14.45%

  • Actual Performance: 19.9% NOT MET

  • Data Source: Table 3


Ffy 2009 indicator 5 lre c

FFY 2009 Indicator 5 LRE C

The percent of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements

  • State Target: 2.19% or below

  • Actual Performance: 1.73% MET

  • Data Source: Table 3


Ffy 2009 indicator 6

FFY 2009 Indicator 6

Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a:

  • A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and

  • B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.


Indicator 6

Indicator 6

  • OSEP continues to not require states to report on this indicator.


Indicator 7

Indicator 7

Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

  • Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

  • Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and

  • Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs

  • Reported baseline data for FFY 2008


  • Ffy 2009 indicator 7 preschool outcomes

    FFY 2009 Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes


    Ffy 2009 indicator 7 preschool outcomes1

    FFY 2009 Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes


    Ffy 2009 indicator 7 preschool outcomes2

    FFY 2009 Indicator 7Preschool Outcomes


    Ffy 2009 indicator 8 parents

    FFY 2009 Indicator 8 Parents

    Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities

    • State Target: 30.83%

    • Actual Performance: 38% MET

    • Data Source: Parent Survey


    Survey information

    Survey Information

    • FFY2008 –

      • 13,240 surveys mailed to parents in 15 LEAs

      • 1,404 surveys were returned (10.6% return rate), which exceeds the expected return rate.

    • FFY2009 –

      • 14,243 surveys mailed to parents in 15 LEAs

      • 430 surveys returned (3.0% return rate)

    • Both years, Spanish versions sent to parents of ELL students.

    Office of Exceptional Children

    www.ed.sc.gov


    Representativeness

    Representativeness

    • In looking at the surveys returned, how representative are they of SC students with disabilities? What does this say about efforts needed to improve parent involvement?

    • Under (African-American, LD, OHI, 11-17 year olds)

    • Over (White, SLI, 6-7 year olds)

    Office of Exceptional Children

    www.ed.sc.gov


    What parents think about the degree to which their child s schools facilitated parent involvement

    What parents think about the degree to which their child’s schools facilitated parent involvement

    What does this say about efforts needed to improve parent involvement?

    Office of Exceptional Children

    www.ed.sc.gov


    How are the data analyzed

    How are the data analyzed?

    • NCSEAM recommends that data be analyzed through the Rasch measurement framework.

    • The analysis locates each item, and each person, on the same measurement ruler.

    • An item’s location on the ruler is its calibration. A person’s position on the ruler is the person’s measure.


    Oec hot topics

    ITEM CALIBRATIONS ON THE PART B SCHOOL EFFORTS RULER*

    • 800 .############ +

    • |

    • |

    • . |

    • . |

    • . |

    • .# |

    • .# |

    • . |

    • . |

    • 700 .### +

    • . |

    • .## |

    • . |

    • .## |

    • .# |

    • .## |

    • .## |

    • .# |

    • .## |

    • 600 .## +

    • .### |

    • .## |

    • .### |

    • .## |

    • .## |

    • .#### |

    • .## |

    • .### |

    • .### |

    • 500 .#### +

    • .### |

    • .####### |

    • .#### |

    • .###### |

    • .#### |

    • .##### |

    • .### |

    • .##### |

    • .### |

    • 400 .### +

    • .#### |

    • .### |

    • .## |

    • .## |

    • .## |

    • .## |

    • .# |

    • ## |

    • . |

    • 300 .# +

    • . |

    • .# |

    • . |

    • .# |

    • . |

    • . |

    • . |

    • . |

    • . |

    • 200 .### +

    • The school explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school. [600]

    *.95 likelihood of agreement


    Ffy2009

    FFY2009


    Ffy20091

    FFY2009


    Ffy20092

    FFY2009


    The data suggests we

    The data suggests we…

    • Increase the numbers of completed surveys (input) from parents who:

      • Are African American

      • Have children with SLD, OHI, Multiple Disabilities, & DD

      • Have children in grades 9-12 &/or ages 11-17 (3yr)

    • Improve parent involvement for those children:

      • African-American (2yr)

      • Are in grades 8-10 (FFY07 and 08)

    • Increase the number of respondents

    Office of Exceptional Children

    www.ed.sc.gov


    Ffy 2009 leas surveyed

    FFY 2009 LEAs surveyed

    • Anderson 02

    • York 01

    • Lancaster

    • Spartanburg 07

    • Anderson 05

    • Florence 05

    • Barnwell 45

    • Sumter 17

    • Florence 01

    • Dillon 03

    • Clarendon 03

    • Marion 02

    • Colleton

    • Dorchester 02

    • Greenville (1/6th)


    2010 2011 leas to be surveyed

    2010-2011 LEAs to be surveyed

    • Greenwood 52

    • Abbeville

    • Spartanburg 01

    • Spartanburg 06

    • Union

    • Lexington 03

    • Dillon 01

    • Dorchester 04

    • Clarendon 02

    • Horry

    • Richland 01

    • Richland 02

    • Greenville (1/6th)


    Ffy 2009 indicator 9 disproportionality

    FFY 2009 Indicator 9 -Disproportionality

    Districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.

    • State Target: 0%

    • Actual Performance: 0% MET

    • Data Source: Weighted Risk Ratio and District Verification


    Ffy 2009 indicator 10 disproportionality

    FFY 2009 Indicator 10 - Disproportionality

    Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

    • State Target: 0%

    • Actual Performance: 4.5% (n=4) NOT MET

      • African American MD (n=2), White SLI, White OHI

    • Data Source: Weighted Risk Ratio and District Verification


    Ffy 2009 indicator 11 60 day timeline

    FFY 2009 Indicator 1160-Day Timeline

    Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe.

    • State Target: 100%

    • Actual Performance: 99.16%

    • NOT MET, but close…

    • Data Source: Excent Extraction


    Ffy 2009 indicator 12 iep by third birthday

    FFY 2009 Indicator 12 - IEP by Third Birthday

    Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

    • State Target: 100%

    • Actual Performance: 96.7%

    • NOT MET

    • Data Source: Excent Extraction


    Indicator 13

    Indicator 13

    Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.


    Indicator 13 transition

    Indicator 13 - Transition

    • Baseline Data was submitted Feb. 2, 2011 for the FFY09 SPP/APR

    • Data Source: Table 1, Self-Report, Peer Verification (State Monitoring), Appeals, Follow-Up Verification (from Self-Reports)


    Ffy 2009 indicator 13

    FFY 2009 Indicator 13

    • Indicator 13 is a “compliance” indicator

    • SC Target: 100%

    • SC Actual Performance: 98.92% NOT MET

    • For FFY 2009, 3,112 IEPS from 94 LEAs & SOPs were reviewed. Following appeals, 3,146 were rated as “compliant.”


    Indicator 14

    Indicator 14

    Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:

    • Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school;

    • Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school; or

    • Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

      Data Source: Survey sent to graduates one year after graduating

      • 2009-2010 Exiters will receive a survey at the end of the 2011 Spring Semester.


    What are positive post school outcomes

    What are Positive Post-School Outcomes?

    Post-school outcomes (PSO) refers to what youth do after leaving high school, specifically:

    • Working

    • Going to school

    • Both

    • Unengaged

    75


    Why are pso important

    Why are PSO important?

    • One purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) 2004 is:

      To ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.

    • Youth’s post-school outcomes is one measure of how well states meet this IDEA purpose.

    IDEA Regulations §300.1(a)

    76


    How are pso data collected

    How are PSO Data Collected?

    Each state determines how these data are collected.

    • In South Carolina data are collect Lifetrack, Inc, between May and September using a mailed survey and follow-up telephone calls, as needed.

    • Data are collected from youth with disabilities who had an IEP when they left school OR their family/others, including youth who graduate, receive a certificate, age-out, drop out, or those expected to return & did not.

    • Families of youth who die, do not receive the survey.

    77


    What data are collected

    What Data are Collected?

    We collect data from youth while they are in school and one year after they have left school.

    • In school:

      • Demographic data (e.g., disability, race/ethnicity)

      • Program data (e.g., post-school goal, type of program they attended)

      • Length of time in school

    • Out of school:

      • Work and school experiences

      • Type of job or school

      • Number of hours working or in school

      • Kind of job

    78


    Commonly used terms

    Commonly Used Terms

    States define terms associated with PSO

    • Competitive employment

    • Higher Education

    • Other postsecondary education or training program

    • Other employment

    • Graduation, certificate, “dropped-out”

    79


    Higher education means

    Higher Education means…

    In South Carolina:

    • Higher education means-

      • youth who have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a community or technical college (2-year program) or college/university (4- or more year program) for at least one complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school.

    80


    Competitive employment means

    Competitive Employment means…

    In South Carolina:

    • Competitive employment means work-

      (i) In the competitive labor market that is performed on a full-time or part-time basis in an integrated setting; and

      (ii) For which an individual is compensated at or above the minimum wage, but not less than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for the same or similar work performed by individuals who are not disabled.

      (Authority: §§7(11) and 12(c) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 705(11) and 709(c))

    81


    Definitions

    Definitions:

    • Other postsecondary school/training means…youth who have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at least 1 complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in an education or training program, which could include JobCorps, adult education, workforce development programs, on-the-job training, vocational educational programs which are less than two-years, and certificate programs (less than a two-year program).

    • Other employment meansyouth who have worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of at least 90 total days at any time in the year since leaving high school, including working in a family business.

    82


    Definitions continued

    Definitions, continued

    • Graduation means – youth who have completed the required 24 credit units required for a state diploma, and who have successfully completed all sections of the exit exams.

    • Received a certificate means – youth who have completed the required 24 credit units required for a state diploma, but have NOT successfully completed the exit exams, but who have exited school

    • Drop-out – students who have exited school but who have not reached maximum age (NOT THE SAME AS AYP DROP-OUT CALCULATION)


    Oec hot topics

    SC’s Data


    Sc pso data

    SC PSO Data

    These data represent youth who left school during the [2009-2010] school year.

    • Of the 3,570 who left high school, 29.7% of the leavers contacted responded to the survey.

    • The responders were found to represent graduates, dropouts, disability groups, ethnicities, and gender.

    • Of those who responded, 65% reported working, going to school or doing both in the one year since leaving high school.

    85


    Engagement by gender

    Engagement by Gender


    Engagement by race ethnicity

    Engagement by Race/Ethnicity


    Needs summary next steps

    Needs Summary/Next Steps

    • Work with Lifetrack to improve survey design and to ensure follow-up telephone interviews are attempted with non-responders

    • Work with LEAs to ensure up-to-date information is in Excent when students exit

    • Market surveys to LEAs, parents, students

    • Provide professional development regarding unengagement


    Ffy 2009 indicator 15 general supervision

    FFY 2009 Indicator 15 - General Supervision

    General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

    • State Target: 100%

    • Actual Performance: 92% NOT MET

    • Increase from FFY 2008 – 77%

    • Data Source: Findings and dispute resolution data from SCDE


    Ffy 2009 indicator 16 timely complaints

    FFY 2009 Indicator 16 - Timely Complaints

    • Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.

    • SC Target: 100%

    • SC Actual: 100% MET

    • Source: Office of General Counsel, SCDE


    Ffy 2009 indicator 17 timely due process hearings

    FFY 2009 Indicator 17Timely Due-Process Hearings

    • Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines.

    • SC Target: 100%

    • SC Actual: 100% MET

    • Data Source: Office of General Counsel, SCDE


    Ffy 2009 indicator 18 resolution agreements

    FFY 2009 Indicator 18Resolution Agreements

    • Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

    • SC Target: 60%

    • SC Actual: 60% MET

    • Source: Office of General Counsel, SCDE


    Ffy 2009 indicator 19 mediation agreements

    FFY 2009 Indicator 19Mediation Agreements

    • Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

    • SC Target: 75% of requests resulting in mediation agreement if more than 10 held

    • SC Actual: Less than 10 were held

    • Data Source: Office of General Counsel, SCDE


    Ffy 2009 indicator 20 timely and accurate submission

    FFY 2009 Indicator 20Timely and Accurate Submission

    State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate

    • State Target: 100%

    • Actual Performance: 100% MET


    Timely accurate data

    Timely & Accurate Data

    • Indicator 20 – State Level Indicator, however a finding can be issued when an LEA fails to submit timely and accurate data or fails to respond to data requests.

    • Citation: 34 C.F.R. § 300.211. The LEA must provide the SEA {state education agency} with information necessary to enable the SEA to carry out its duties under Part B of the Act, including, with respect to 300.157 and 300.160, information relating to the performance of children with disabilities in programs carried out under Part B of the Act.


    Spp apr implications

    SPP/APR Implications

    • District Profile: Public “report card” for special ed.;

    • Findings of Noncompliance (conduct self-assessments, develop a PICO, undertake and monitor activities) and individual and systemic corrections;

    • Lowered Determination (additional general supervision requirements including required technical assistance, professional development, on-site monitoring of student records, and possible withholding of IDEA ;funds)

    • Possible on-site monitoring and general supervision

    • Possible additional sanctions (e.g., CEIS);

    • Possible complaints;

    • State-level implications;

    • AND…


    Implications for children

    Implications for children

    • Delay in determining whether the student is a student with a disability (family implications)

    • Delay in the provision of services

    • Delay in the protection granted by IDEA (i.e., protection of the law)

    • Violation of that child’s right to educational programs

    • Long-term negative impact on children’s educational outcomes (e.g., risk for school failure and drop out)

    • Others?

    • The DATA are NOT just about NUMBERS…


    Oec general supervision process

    OEC General Supervision Process

    Overview

    Findings, PICO-r

    Determinations

    Compliance Monitoring


    Oec hot topics

    Goal

    • The goal of SCDE’s general supervision system is to ensure that LEAs are meeting the requirements of both federal and state regulations.


    Four components

    Four Components

    • State Performance Plan (SPP) – particularly areas of noncompliance (e.g., findings of noncompliance)

    • Annual Determinations

    • Compliance Monitoring Activities

    • Fiscal Accountability


    Oec hot topics

    SPP

    • 20 Indicators

      • Compliance

      • Performance

    • Data gathering related to Indicators

      • Indicators 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 20 rely on district data entry/submission


    Oec support resources

    OEC Support Resources

    • Professional Development – regionally, topically, Research-to-Practice, other opportunities

      • Is geared for informational purposes that would benefit multiple LEAs/groups

    • Technical Assistance – regionally, topically, on-site, virtually

      • Is geared for specific purposes to assist a particular LEA, organization, school, or group with implementing regulatory requirements of IDEA


    Oec data resources

    OEC Data Resources

    • OEC Data Calendar

      • General & Seasonal

    • OEC Data Manual

    • OEC Monthly Data Webinars

    • OEC Fall Real-time Data Meetings

    • OEC Spring Virtual Data Meetings

    • Pre-check for most data reports:

      • Tables 1 & 3, 2, 4, 5 (as requested), 6

      • Indicators 11, 12, and 7 (as requested)

    • Confirmatory Self-Assessments

      • Indicators 4A, 4B, 9, 10, and 13


    Findings and correction

    Findings and Correction


    What is a finding

    What is a finding?

    • Afinding is a written notification from the State to a LEA that contains the State’s conclusion that the LEA is in noncompliance, and that includes the citation of the statute or regulation and a description of the quantitative and/or qualitative data supporting the State’s conclusion that there is noncompliance with that statute or regulation.

    • All findings of noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year.


    Findings

    Findings

    • A state must make a finding of noncompliance if it finds any level of noncompliance with the IDEA.

    • If the LEA immediately (i.e., before the State issues a written notification of a finding) corrects noncompliance and provides documentation of such correction, the State may choose not to make a finding.


    C orrection

    Correction

    • Correction timeline begins on the date the State informs a LEA in writing that it has a finding.

    • The LEA must correct each individual case of noncompliance found at the child level. (For example, all children received an initial evaluation although late.)

    • Correction of noncompliance must be consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02


    Correction

    Correction

    • The LEA must also demonstrate correction of any systemic noncompliance within the one year timeline.

    • The state must verify correction of the noncompliance, and may choose to do so in a timeframe earlier than one year. (Example: the LEA may demonstrate correction for Indicator 11 after a 3 month time period.)


    Correction1

    Correction

    • If an LEA does not correct within one year, they then have a continuing case of noncompliance. Continued noncompliance may affect the LEA determination along with additional required general supervision activities.

    • Correction will look different depending on the nature of the finding, and the length of time of the noncompliance.


    Plan for improving children s outcomes pico r

    Plan for Improving Children’s Outcomes(PICO-r)

    • LEA completes PICO-r to correct any/all finding(s) of noncompliance

      • Plan describes measurable, sequential activities the LEA will implement for correction

      • Plan includes specifics

        • Concrete and outcome-based activities

        • staff responsible for implementation of the plan

        • outputs that show evidence of completed activities

        • benchmark results to determine improvements


    Plan for improving children s outcomes pico r1

    Plan for Improving Children’s Outcomes (PICO-r)

    • Plan development and reporting consists of the following:

      • Identification of causal factors for noncompliance

      • Completion of self-assessment probe questions

      • Completion of PICO document with submission to Regional Representative for review

      • Examination of data on a quarterly basis to monitor and report progress toward correction and compliance

    • Revised in 2011 to improve the efficacy of the PICOs


    Pico r

    PICO-r

    • LEAs will have ONE PICO, encompassing ALL findings, their appropriate determination (if necessary), and other needs (as needed).

    • It will serve as an umbrella program evaluation tool using a logic model, that is amended and updated as needed or required.

    • LEAs required to have PICOs will submit semi-annual reports to the OEC.


    Determinations

    Determinations


    Determinations1

    Determinations

    • The IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR §§300.600(c) and 300.603 require state education agencies (SEAs) to make “determinations” annually about the performance of each LEA based on information provided in the SPP/APR, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information made available.


    Determinations2

    Determinations

    • Identifies the LEA’s performance in implementing the requirements & purposes of the IDEA;

    • Classified by 4 determinations;

    • Mirrors the process the OSEP uses in making state (SEA) determinations; &

    • Linked to funding & general supervision


    Determinations address

    Determinations address…

    • History, nature, and length of time of any reported noncompliance;

    • Evidence of correction, including progress toward full compliance;

    • Information regarding valid and reliable data;

    • Audit findings; and

    • Monitoring findings.


    Determinations3

    Determinations

    • Meets Requirements

    • Needs Assistance (1 & 2 years)

    • Needs Intervention (1, 2, & 3 years)

    • Needs Substantial Intervention


    Determinations4

    Determinations

    • For FFY 2008 Determinations, the OEC created a “triage” to identify the degree to which it would conduct general supervision activities.

    • Other monitoring and general supervision activities could be required for ALL LEAs, dependent upon their implementation of IDEA.

    • The OEC used the same protocol as OSEP in calculating FFY 2008 Determinations

    • In Summer 2010, OSEP changed its protocol for calculating LEAs determinations. As a result, the OEC is in the process of updating it’s Determinations Rubric. Once finalized, the OEC will provide this information to LEAs PRIOR TO ISSUING DETERMINATIONS


    Ffy08 determinations profile

    FFY08 Determinations Profile


    Determinations cont d

    Determinations, cont’d

    • Meets - written commendations to the LEA’s superintendent, the LEA’s board of education, the State Board of Education as well as recognition on the Office of Exceptional Children (OEC) website.

    • 55 LEAs achieved “Meets Requirements”


    Determinations cont d1

    Determinations, cont’d

    Needs Assistance (1st Yr)

    • Notification for correction

    • Required PICO

    • Advised of TA

    • May be required to participate in TA & PD

    Needs Assistance (2nd Yr)

    • Required PICOs

    • Required TA participation.

    • May be required to have focused on-site general supervision activities

    • SAME FOR Needs Intervention 1st Year


    Determinations cont d2

    Determinations, cont’d

    Needs Intervention (Yr 2)

    • All requirements of Needs Intervention (1st Year)

    • On-site General Supervision Activities

    • Required TA and PD

    Needs Intervention (Yr 3)

    • All requirements of NI2

    • Possible compliance agreement

    • May be “high-risk grantee”

    • May withhold funds


    Determinations cont d3

    Determinations, cont’d

    Needs Substantial Intervention - in addition to complying with all regulations described for Needs Intervention, the State may recover funds under section 452 of the General Education Provisions Act; withhold, in part or whole, any further payments to the LEA of IDEA funds; and/or refer the matter for appropriate enforcement action.


    Compliance monitoring

    Compliance Monitoring


    Compliance monitoring1

    Compliance Monitoring

    • Monitoring activities include:

      • Database reviews

      • On-site visits

      • Record reviews (on site and through Excent)

      • Dispute resolution outcomes/issues

      • LEA Self-Assessments


    What are we looking for

    What are we looking for?

    • Are young children with disabilities entering kindergarten ready to learn?

      • Indicator 6: Preschool Educational Environments

      • Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes

      • Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition


    What are we looking for1

    What are we looking for?

    • Are children with disabilities achieving at high levels? 

      • Indicator 3: Statewide Assessment

      • Indicator 4: Suspension/Expulsion

      • Indicator 5: School-age Educational Environments


    What are we looking for2

    What are we looking for?

    • Are youth with disabilities prepared for life, work and postsecondary education?

      • Indicator 1: Graduation

      • Indicator 2:Dropout

      • Indicator 13: Postsecondary Transition

      • Indicator 14: Postsecondary Outcomes


    What are we looking for3

    What are we looking for?

    • Does the district implement IDEA to improve services and results for children with disabilities? 

      • Indicator 8: Facilitated Parent Involvement

      • Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation - Child with a Disability

      • Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation - Eligibility Categories

      • Indicator 11: Child Find

      • Indicator 15: Timely Correction of Noncompliance Finding

      • Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Data

      • Fiscal Accountability


    When are you coming to see me

    When are you coming to see me?

    • If you are in Needs Intervention for more than one year, expect a visit.

    • If you are in Needs Substantial Intervention, expect a LONG visit.

    • If you fall into a cyclical monitoring cycle, expect a visit.

    • If SCDE administration requires the OEC to monitor your district, expect a visit.


    When we come to visit

    When We Come to Visit

    • Record reviews

    • Staff interviews

    • Student and family interviews

    • Review of policies and procedures


    Will the visit result in findings

    Will the visit result in findings?

    • Possibly. Pursuant to OSEP Memorandum 09-02 dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02), the SCDE must account for all instances of noncompliance.

    • The OEC will make student level and/or LEA level findings of noncompliance if warranted.


    And then what

    And then what?

    • All instances of noncompliance must be corrected as soon as possible but in no case later than one year of notification of non-compliance. (District will develop PICO-r)

    • The OEC will verify correction consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02, and issue a correction notice.


    But when are you coming to see me

    But when are you coming to see ME???

    • If you earn a determination of NI for the second time.

    • If you earn a determination of NSI

    • The OEC is developing a six year cycle for onsite monitoring, likely similar to Indicator 8 sampling plan (see SPP).

      • Taking into consideration new districts and district consolidations


    Will you visit a district more than once every six years

    Will you visit a district more than once every six years?

    • Possibly. If the district earns NI for a second year in a row, then they may receive more than one onsite visit within the six year period.

    • If other issues become problematic during the six year cycle, the OEC or SCDE administration may decide that an onsite visit is warranted.


    John payne jrpayne@ed sc gov michelle bishop mbishop@ed sc gov

    John Payne – [email protected] Bishop – [email protected]


    Let s all cheer

    LET’S ALL CHEER!!!!


    Mental health needs of deaf children

    Mental Health Needs of Deaf Children

    Holly May, MA, LPC

    Program Manager, SCDMH Deaf Services


    Welcome

    welcome

    • Objectives of this presentation

      • Identify relationship between Etiology of Deafness and Mental Health

      • Present Systematic Best Practices for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth Mental Health Services


    The whole picture

    The “Whole” Picture

    • D/HH show significantly more symptoms of Mental Health Problems than Hearing (Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2007 Kvam, et al)

    • Deaf Children are more vulnerable to neglect, emotional, physical and sexual abuse than children in the general population. (Sullivan, Vernon & Scanlan, 1987)


    Facts please

    Facts, please

    • 92% of D/HH children born to parents who can hear

    • 15% of those parents develop sign language skills necessary to communicate (meaningfully!)

      • (Mindel and Vernon 1970)


    Traumatization

    Traumatization

    • 50% of D/HH girls have been sexually abused as compared to 25% of hearing girls. (Sullivan et al., 1987)

    • 54% of D/HH boys have been sexually abused compared to 10% of hearing boys. (Sullivan et al., 1987)


    Traumatization1

    Traumatization

    • Individuals with Disabilities are over four times more likely to be victims of crime than non-disabled population. (Sobsey, 1996)

    • Children with communication disorders are more likely to be physically and sexually abused than children without these disorders. (Sullivan & Knutson, 1998)


    Traumatization2

    Traumatization

    • Maltreatment of children with disabilities is 1.5-to-10 times higher than children without disabilities. (Baladerian, 1991; Sosbey & Doe, 1991; Sosbey & Vamhagen, 1989; Sullivan & Knutson, 2000)


    Communication neglect

    Communication Neglect

    • Increased frustration by adults and children, including immediate family

    • Difficulty teaching deaf children about safety

    • Difficulties teaching/learning skill building and socialization

    • General lack of social norms (Sullivan, Scanlon, Brookhouser & Schulte 1992)

    • Inaccessible prevention programs

    • Decreased opportunities for incidental learning (i.e. cognition vs. metacognition)


    Communication neglect1

    Communication Neglect

    • Decreased opportunities for trusting, open relationships

    • Less disclosure of abuse to caregivers

    • Less understanding of the parameters of healthy/safe touching

    • “Ideal Victims” perceived as unable to report incidents (Critchfield 1983, Elder 1993)


    Oec hot topics

    AND….

    • An higher incidence of other disabilities that accompany the etiological factors that caused the Deafness (Hindley & Kroll, 1989)

    • Blindness (Ushers Syndrome)

    • Physical Disabilities, deformities

    • Other Syndromes (Waardenburg's)

    • Drug and Alcohol Abuse


    One example

    One example…

    • CMV: Attacks hearing, visual and cognitive centers, as well as parts of CNS thought to be responsible for impulse control

      • 80 to 90% experience significant neurological problems (Cohen 2004)

      • Inability to tolerate minimal frustration

      • Cognitive delays


    Cmv approaches

    CMV Approaches

    • Involving family, teach effective strategies at home

    • Short, highly focused work periods, followed by some equally intense physical release

    • Expecting impulsive responses, offering outlet or ritualized response


    Depression dysthymia

    Depression & Dysthymia

    • Suicide Assessment by clinician qualified to provide AND qualified to communicate effectively

    • Change in affect (eye gaze, facial expressions)

    • Deaf children use facial expressions to greater degree than general population

    • Unwillingness to make eye contact can be warning


    Treatment team

    Treatment Team

    • Certified Interpreter WITH Mental Health experience (please not the school interpreter!)

    • Ethical Guidelines for mental health treatment state that therapy must be offered in the client’s native language


    Therapeutic adaptations individual

    Therapeutic AdaptationsIndividual

    • Therapeutic Process Longer

    • More information needed for assessment (i.e. what supports, communication, experiences)

    • Adaptation of therapeutic approaches for D/HH (i.e. relaxation techniques utilize senses other than hearing)

    • Therapist often puts more emphasis on increasing socialization skills and safety


    Therapeutic adaptations family

    Therapeutic Adaptations Family

    • To Sign or not to Sign, setting example

    • Interpreter

    • Therapist often educating family on deafness, sign language, etc

    • Parents own guilt about having d/hh child and understanding deafness


    Therapeutic adaptations family parents

    Therapeutic Adaptations Family/Parents

    • Supporting parents in decreasing over protectiveness

    • Encourage, facilitate, guide family to d/hh community resources

    • Discussion of cultural gaps “Deaf Family vs. Hearing Family”


    Other than just going to the deaf club

    Other than just going to the Deaf Club..

    • Use of Internet, I.M. Chats, Text

    • Videophones

    • VLogs

    • Kids World Deafnet

    • Online ASL classes

    • Big Brother-Big Sisters


    Scdmh deaf services

    SCDMH Deaf Services

    • 32 total positions across the state, with 18 positions filled, serving 301 consumers

    • Statewide Coordination

      • Clinical Services

      • ASL Interpreter Services

    • National model of excellence

      • CMHS and NASMHPD


    Scdmh deaf services1

    SCDMH Deaf Services

    • Services available to consumers in their home community

      • Regional delivery of services allow for parity between rural and urban regions

      • Qualified supervision

      • Effective use of scarce resources

    • Providing outpatient and inpatient services to children


    Scdmh deaf services2

    SCDMH Deaf Services

    • Services provided directly to consumers in their own language

      • Identified as a strong consumer preference

      • As required by law and court decisions

    • Effective use of technology

      • Videophone capacity between clients and staff

      • E-mail availability/24 hours crisis service

      • Electronic Medical Record


    Process

    Process

    • Referral

      • 800-647-2066 - 24/7 availability – voice/TTY/fax

      • [email protected] or [email protected]

    • Emergency

      • Deaf Services staff

      • Interpreter

        • Hospital responsibility

        • Required for DMH facility admission

      • Telepsychiatry project


    Process1

    Process

    • Intake

      • Deaf Services clinical staff with local center administrative support

    • Ongoing services

      • Itinerant Deaf Services Clinician

      • Center staff with an interpreter & consultation

      • Co-therapy with MHC and Deaf Services staff

    • MHC or Deaf Services pyschiatrist


    Ages we serve

    Ages We Serve


    Resources

    Resources

    • http://raisingdeafkids.org (Resources for Parents, including Self-Esteem, Mentoring Information)

    • http://www.ndepnow.org (Language and Communication-driven Education Advocates)

    • http://www.handsandvoices.org/ (Parent Support)

    • http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/KidsWorldDeafNet (National Network, E-Library, Discussion Forums)

    • http://centerondeafness.utk.edu/pec/sotacs.html (Transition, Secondary and Post Secondary and transition)


    Resources1

    Resources

    • PEPNet South: Pat Varner-Bland: [email protected]

    • http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/ (National Institutes of Health)

    • http://www.nationaldeafacademy.com (Residential Treatment Program, publishes very informative newsletter)

    • National Association of the Deaf www.NAD.org (formed to promote, protect and preserve rights and quality of D/HH Life)

    • ASDC www.deafchildren.org (parent-helping-parent, publishes Endeavor)

    • www.deafmh.org (SCDMH Deaf Services)


    Thank you

    Thank you

    Holly May, MA, Program Manager, SCDMH Deaf Services

    [email protected] (best way to contact)

    (864) 297-5044 (office)


  • Login