Greg Austin, PhD ( gaustin@wested ) Director, • WestEd Health and Human Development Program

1. Using and Promoting the California School Climate Survey and the Special Education Supports Information System(SESIS) • Greg Austin, PhD (gaustin@wested.org) • Director, • • WestEd Health and Human Development Program • • California School Climate, Health, and Learning Surveys System • Dona Meinders • WestEd Center for Prevention and Early Intervention

2. Presentation Outline • Data and resources available through the California School Climate Survey (CSCS) of school staff and its Special Education Supports Information System (SESIS). • Why school climate matters to special education. • Example of data use • Key state findings. • Current challenges to sustaining the system and how to address. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO USE AND PROMOTE!

3. What is SESIS? • Part of the California School Climate Survey (CSCS) data system. • A resource that provides schools, districts, SELPAs, and CDE with data from school staff to better: • Understand and address the needs of students and staff in special education programs. • Improve staff working conditions and retention. • Integrate special and general education • Development funded by CDE Division of Special Education and the California Comprehensive Center, 2008-12.

4. Key SESIS Components • Addition of questions to CSCS to identify special education (SE) teachers and other service providers CSCS. • Addition of Special Education Supports Module. • Reports comparing results from Special Education providers vs. others. • Website: cscs.wested.org/about/projects/sesis.

5. What is the California School Climate Survey (CSCS)? • The state’s main survey of and about school staff. • One of the three linked tools for local data collection that form the California School Climate, Health, and Learning Survey System (Cal-SCHLS): • CA Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) • CA School Climate Survey (CSCS) • CA School Parent Survey (CSPS) • A project of the California Dept of Ed, with support from the Dept of Alcohol and Drug Programs. • Websites: cal-schls/chks/cscs/csps.wested.org

6. What is Cal-SCHLS? • The largest, oldest effort to provide schools/communities statewide with local data from students, staff, parents to: • Identify the needs of students of students related to success in school, career, and life. • Promote health and well-being. • Improve school climates, teacher satisfaction and retention, and parent involvement • Identified as a model system by the US Dept of Ed (Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students)

7. California School Climate Survey (CSCS): Development • Main Goals • Assess needs of teachers and other staff in light of teacher retention issue. • Influenced by research on factors that influence teachers staying or leaving the field and overall job satisfaction (e.g., Futernick, 2007*) • Provide staff perceptions to compare with student self-report in CHKS. • Provide data on supports and services provided for students and staff, general and special education. • Developed collaboratively by: • WestEd Cal-SCHLS staff & California Comprehensive Center • CDE Coordinated School Health and Safety Office, Special Education Division, Superintendent’s P16 Office *Ken Futernick, A Possible Dream….Retaining California Teachers…So ALL Children Can Learn (2007)

8. CSCS Overview • Modular instrument (download: cscs.wested.org) • General Core (for all staff) • Learning Supports Module (health/prevention staff) • Special Education Supports Module • For providers of services to students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) • Custom Module (You can add questions!) • On-line and no cost if administered with CHKS • All certified and classified staff, elementary through high school • Anonymous and voluntary • 2004-10 required biennially of all LEAs receiving NCLB Title IV funding. Typically administered by about: • 700 Districts, 4,800 Schools, 94,000 Staff

9. Core Module Content (43 items/all staff ) • Respondent demographics and rolls • Academic priorities, norms & standards • Student motivation & readiness to learn • Relationships: student/staff & intra-staff (collegiality) • Staff supports, involvement in decision-making, & professional development needs • Student & staff safety • Impact on school of student behavior • Perceived student physical and mental health • Equity & discipline (communication & enforcement) • Parent involvement

10. SE-related Content • Respondent role in school (Core): • Special education teacher (#1) • Provide services to students in special education (#2) • Need for professional development in serving SE students (Core). • School SE supports: • Provides materials, resources, and training needed to work with IEP students (Core). • Provides services for students with disabilities/special needs (Learning Supports Module). • Emphasizes helping students with their social, emotional, and behavioral problems (Learning Supports Module).

11. Content: Special Education Supports Module (SESM) • Staff degrees, credentials, service setting • Bureaucratic barriers (3 items) • Integration & collaboration between special & general ed (5 items) • Expectations & supports for students withIEPs (5 items) • Staff personnel supports (7 items) Influenced by Futernick (2007)* research on factors affecting staff retention * See slide 7

12. Reports (2008-12 at cscs.wested.org) • 670 District Main Reports with SESM (biennial) • Some received two (biennial) • District SE Reports • Disaggregated by SE staff providers vs. all others • Minimum 5 staff respondents to preserve confidentiality • 2008-10: 493 reports • 2010-12: 253 reports (Lower due to declining CSCS participation) • 58 SELPA Main Reports • 1- or 2-year aggregations, 2009-11, total sample • Excluding single district SELPAs • 2 State Reports (2008-10) • SE Providers vs. Other Staff • SE vs. General Ed Teacher

13. SESM Summary Table from Main Report

14. Sample Page from SE Report

15. Other Data Availability • School-level reports and full datasets on request • Custom disaggregations • Query CSCS • Forthcoming online access to total sample results.

16. Resources • CSCS Survey Content Guide • Describes purpose and significance of each question on survey, including SESM • Making Sense of School Climate: Using Cal-SCHLS to Inform Your School Improvement Efforts (californiaS3.wested.org/tools) • Making Data-driven Decisions in Student Support and School Mental Health Programs: A Guidebook for Practice (forthcoming) • CHKS Guidebook for Data Use and Dissemination • Data Use and Student Voice Workshops

17. School Climate Data Workbook • Worksheets for identifying and understanding key survey results, including Special Education related. • Action guide to next steps in using CHKS/CSCS data to improve practice and policy in improving school climate, closing the achievement gap, and meeting the needs of diverse populations. (californiaS3.wested.org/tools)

19. Generic Question Worksheets

20. Why School Climate Matters

21. School Climate: What is It? • The learning conditions and quality of the school environment that affect the attitudes, behaviors, and performance of both students and staff. • Acts as a filter to a student’s potential to succeed — can impede or enhance. • Strongest argument you can make for why CSCS data needed by the school. • An approach to school improvement that aligns with many concepts found in special education.

22. Why Is It Important? • “… to a greater or less extent, all research on school climate finds a positive correlation between better school climate and increased student learning and achievement.” – Jones et al. 2008 • Attendance, behavior, grades, test scores, and graduation • School climate directly influences the psychosocial as well as cognitive development of students • Indirectly influences achievement through its effect on teacher performance and retention (job satisfaction). .

23. Importance: Staff Retention • Teaching and learning conditions are key factor influencing retention in the teaching profession (Futernick 2007)* • This is especially true for special educators • School climate factors are among the most important in whether teachers stay or leave. • Relationships and collegiality. • Opportunities for participation and decision making, control over the workload. • Perceptions about system & administrative support. • SESM designed to fit under these research categories *See slide 6

24. The Missing Piece in School Reform • School climate is “possibly the least discussed element in practical conversations about how to improve student achievement.” (Jerald 2006) • Only 10-20% of school turnaround efforts succeed. • Most school reform efforts focused on improvements in instruction and governance. • Often necessary but insufficient. • Fall short when lack attention to why students learn and how the school environment affects them. • The greatest teachers and instruction will have little impact if students do not attend, behave, and try — and climate influences all of these.

25. Importance of the School Climate Focus • Directs attention to the supports and opportunities schools provide to ensure all student succeed. • Rooted in recognition school success requires addressing the needs of the Whole Child — Social, Emotional, Physical, as well as Cognitive

26. Focus Aligns with Response-to-Intervention Approaches • Identify school-wide issues that can be addressed by fostering protective factors that impact multiple risk factors and problem behaviors, and promote positive development. • Early identification of at-risk groups. • Implementing interventions for high-risk youth.

27. Examples of SESIS Data Use

28. Topics Included in CSCS Reports • Learning and Working Environment • Student Developmental Supports and Opportunities • Respect, Cultural Sensitivity, and the Achievement Gap • Learning Readiness and Engagement Indicators • Perceived Student Risk Behavior • Discipline & Counseling • Learning Supports Module: • Student Services and Policies • Special Education Supports Module: • Barriers to Effective Service Delivery • Integration and Collaboration between Special and General Education • Expectations and Supports for Special Populations • Personnel Supports

29. Possible Uses of the Data District-level* data that can be used for: • Identification of Root Causes of Disproportionate Representation • Data for district improvement plans for Program Improvement • Improvement of special education services • LEA Plan Development • Retention of special education teachers *School level may be available on request

30. California School Climate SurveyMain District Report 2010-11

31. CSCS District Data 2010-11Findings Related to Statements of Need

32. CSCS District Data 2010-11Findings Related to the Severity of Student Problems

33. CSCS District Data 2010-11Findings Related to Professional Development Needs

34. STATEWIDE RESULTS (2008-10): Confirm survey need and value for Special Education

35. Respondents (2008-10 Report) CORE MODULE • Total 94,000 • SE Providers 65,000 (c.2000 per school level; highest elementary) • SE Teachers 7,200 • 670 districts & 4,844 schools SESM • Total 60,400 • SE Providers 45,000 • SE Teachers 6,500 (other teachers 43,600)

36. Key Results: Core and Learning Supports Module • Elementary staff higher than high school for: • Level of resources provided to SE, • Help provided for students with social-emotional problems, and • PD need in serving SE students. • High school staff higher than elementary for: • Student depression/mental health being moderate/severe problem at school • Providing services for students with disabilities/special needs

37. Key Results: Special Ed vs. General Ed (Core Items) • SE vs. GE differences greater among teachers than providers (for which often small). • SE teachers less positive than GE on school climate indicators. • SE more positive on SE-related items. • Overall results mask school-level differences • Less positive results for SE vs. GE teachers largely found in high schools, followed by middle schools. • Elementary differences small, or SE more positive than GE.

38. SE Teachers Less Positive than GE for School Climate Indicators (Strongly Agree) • Students equal opportunity for classroom participation. (<8 points, 34% SE vs. 42% GE) • Staff really care about every student. (<5 points, 41% SE vs. 46% GE) • Staff treat every students with respect. (<5 points, 34% SE vs. 39% GE) • School supportive and inviting place to learn. (<4 points, 41% SE vs. 45% GE) • School promotes academic success for all students. (<4 points, 40% SE vs. 44% GE) • School provides materials, resources, training to do job effectively. (<3 points, 22% SE vs. GE 25%) SE = Special Ed Teachers; GE = General Ed Teacher

39. Professional Development Needs (SE vs. GE Teachers) • Overall little difference • Including for serving special education students (48% vs. 50%) • Biggest differences: • Meeting social, emotional, developmental needs of students, (>5 points, 56% vs. 51%) • Positive behavior supports & classroom management (>6 points, 45% vs. 39%)

40. Sustaining the Data

41. Challenges to Data Availability • NCLB Title 4 defunding has ended CDE survey requirement and source of covering survey costs • Over one-third decline in survey participation in 2011-12 • Less willing to do anything that not required, costs money and labor (biggest issue), and involves classroom time • If schools stop surveying, lose not only local data but ability to aggregate at county, SELPA, and state levels. • Lost $250,000 project support

42. Challenges to Data Availability: SESIS • CDE no longer funding SESIS and preparation of Special Ed Reports (disaggregated by providers) • Under review: SESM to be converted to supplementary module, only added on request (with fee of $100) • Disaggregated reports (SE providers vs. others) provided only on request • $100 preparation fee.

43. Responses: State and County Supports for CHKS/CSCS • Online CHKS to reduce survey administration labor • CHKS/CSCS still required of state TUPE (Tobacco Use Prevention Education) grantees • New Tier 1 grants specifically to fund survey • County agencies collaborating to provide funding to preserve countywide district administration • Orange, Sonoma etc. • County AOD depts can use Substance Abuse Prevention & Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant Primary Prevention funds to support survey • State funding for CHKS support if agree to participate in state substance use survey (CSS) • Most supports for CHKS, but CSCS free with it

44. What You Can Do: Actively Lobby for Survey Participation • Reach out to all stakeholders (health, prevention, school improvement team, administrators). Show how data meets multiple needs (break down silos). • Make the case for the survey’s value to the school, both for Special Ed and school improvement efforts in general. Speak to the school’s concerns. • Improving student attendance, engagement, grades, and graduation • Addressing teacher retention and parent/community involvement. • Local data essential for guiding school and program improvement efforts as part of a data-driven decision-making process. • See Cal-SCHLS Guidelines for Survey Administration, 2010-11. (www.cal-schls.wested.org)

45. What You Can Do • Offer to help plan and administer the survey • Make sure SESM added to the CSCS. • Make sure disaggregated Special Ed Report requested. • Work to find sources of funding • Network with county agencies for countywide support • Local foundations and other data users • Have district apply for TUPE grant • Show them examples from existing CSCS/CHKS data for why important. • Provide expertise to help students in need. See: CHKS Guidebook to Data Use and Dissemination

46. Survey Value: Other Ways It Has Been Used • Obtaining program funding • Federal/state grants will still be requiring needs-assessment data to justify funding in proposals. • One of the primary benefits cited by LEAs • Required to obtain State TUPE grants. • Identifying youth needs, especially most vulnerable populations • Raising public awareness and school support • Improving school-community collaboration in meeting needs of youth See Cal-SCHLS Guidelines for Survey Administration, 2010-11. (www.cal-schls.wested.org)

47. Value: Cost Benefit • Direct costs low: CHKS/CSCS only $.30/kid. • For half of districts, basic fees c.$130 or less. • Districts in 6th & 7th deciles, from $150-350. • The 10% of largest districts, $1,000. • Cost effective means to collect other needed data (add questions) • Don’t have to do the CHKS. Stand-alone costs: $250-500 depending on district size • Real need help in labor costs (planning & administering the survey) See Cal-SCHLS Guidelines for Survey Administration, 2010-11. (www.cal-schls.wested.org)

48. For further information: • Gregory Austin, CHKS/CSCS Director • gaustin@wested.org • 562.799.5155 • Website: www.wested.org/cscs • Toll-free CHKS/CSCS Information Line: 888.841.7536 • JanetDigmon, California Department of Education • jdigmon@cde.ca.gov