Special Education Supports Information System Update

1. Special Education Supports Information System Update Greg Austin, WestEdDirector, Health and Human Development Program & Cal-SCHLS System gaustin@wested.org / 562.799.5155 Presented to the CA Strategic Plan Leadership Team Meeting, June 8, 2011, California Dept of Ed

2. SE Staff Responsibility Questions • Q1. What is your role at this school (Mark all apply): Teacher; Special Education Teacher • Q2. Do you provide services to the following types of students: Special Education • SESM: School personnel with responsibilities for teaching or providing services to students withIEPs, including general ed teachers who serve students with IEPs, paraprofessionals…other support providers (e.g., speech therapists).

3. District Report Example • All SE Providers vs. Others

4. State Report • Two-year aggregation of data from all districts • Disaggregated by SE vs. Non-SE responsibilities • Issue: Given 8 column report layout, what is the best approach to disaggregation?

5. 2008-10 Respondents Core Module • Total Respondents: 95,000 • SE Teachers 6,500 (07%) • Gen Ed Teacher w/ SE Services 40,000 (42%) • Other SE Services 17,000 (18%) SESM Module • Total Respondents: 56,000 • SE Teachers 5,700 (10%) • Gen Ed Teacher w/ SE Services 26,000 (46%) • Other SE Services 9,500 (17%)

6. Main State Findings • Results often vary for SE vs. GE Teachers compared with all SE Providers vs. Non-Providers • Level of results overall lower for teachers only • Supportive workplace: T 36% vs 37%; All: 39% vs 40% • Group differences often greater • Safe for staff: T 39% vs 43%; All 45% vs 46% • Welcomes parents: T 41% vs 39%; All 41% vs 42% • Students well-behaved: T 65% vs 70%; All 73% vs 70% • PD behavior/classroom management:T 45% vs 38%; All 39% vs 38%

7. Main Teacher Findings: Group Differences • Elementary teachers more positive than Secondary • Elementary SET more positive than GET • Learning & working environment • Staff collegiality and sense of mission • Student learning readiness & motivation • Adverse impact student behavior • Learning supports • Secondary SET often less positive than GET on same indicators as above

8. Main Teacher Findings: Group differences • Across schools SET higher than GET for: • Welcoming parent involvement • Materials reflecting student culture • Need PD for (1) behavior/classroom management, (2) youth development • Across schools SET lower for: • Adults treating students (1) fairly, (2) with respect

9. Findings for SE Teachers • Half or more need PD in serving IEP students and meeting SEL/developmental needs • Only about one-third strongly agree school positive working place, safe, collegial, have high expectations for students, treat students fairly/respectfully • Less than one-quarter strongly agree provides resources to work w/ IEP students • But 60% report provides a lot of services for students w/ disabilities or special needs and resources to do job effectively.

10. Findings for SE Teachers • Elem/Middle much higher than High School for doing a lot of service for students with disabilities/special needs (65% vs 46%) • Elem much higher than Middle or High School for having resources to (1) do job effectively and (2) work with IEP students (31% vs. 16%; 29% vs. 21%)

11. SESM Findings: SE Teachers • Results become less positive across school types • Six highest (30%-36%) strong agreement overall: • Reduces instructional interruptions • Effectively schedules mandated activities • Integrates SE into daily operations • High expectations for IEP students • Provides positive working environment • Climate encourages continued service

12. SESM Findings: SE Teachers • Six lowest (12%-19%) strong agreement overall • Works to minimize paperwork • Sufficient time to collaborate • Alternative modes of communication • Sufficient resources for SE programs/services • Relevant paraprofessional training • Adequate benefits/compensation

13. SESM SE vs. Other Teachers (Strongly Agree) • Integrates special ed into daily operations (35%/35%) • Encourages genera/special ed teaming (27%/25%) • Participation in decision-making (22%/17%) • Has good communication to support IEP students (26%/17%) — biggest difference • Service to IEP students shared responsibility (20%/21%) • Adequate benefits/compensation (19%/15%) • Sufficient resources for SE services (17%/15%) • Provides relevant paraprofessional training (12%/11%) • Minimizes paperwork (12%/14%)

14. State Report Issues: Core • Eight column limitation • Total district results relevant? • More specific breakdowns than all SE vs. Others: • SE vs. GE teachers for MS and HS (4 columns) • All SE staff at grade levels for comparison to district reports (3 columns). • Separate reports • SE vs. GE teachers and SE Providers vs. Others for MS and HS • All SE staff vs. all others by grade level

15. State Report Issues: Summary Tables • Recommendation: Combine agree with strongly agree • Would wash out group differences

16. State Report: SESM Issues • Report separately SE Teachers vs. Other Providers? • How handle non-SE respondents? • 27% non-SE. Half of all non-SE respondents. • Delete? • Only four items not SE-specific: Paper work (recommended to delete), paraprofessional training, offers adequate benefits, decision-making (also in Core)

17. SESM Item Factor Analysis • Goal: Summarize and simplify results • No factor into originally four categories: • Barriers to service delivery • SE Integration • Students expectations and supports • Personnel supports • Two main factors not easily distinguished with several items not factoring well • Sequential factors: Items 7-17 and 18-24 • Option: Explore single SE Supports Index

18. CASPLT Instrument Revision Recommendations • What can we do to shorten, clarify, and simplify the survey — and provide more useful results — without affecting trends?

19. Integrate all SESM into Core • Issues: • Increases survey length for many • Would non-SE providers know answers? • Decision-making already in Core (S24) • Only add to Core other items more relevant to all staff at local level — disaggregate at state level? • Paraprofessional training (S13), • Supports for teaching diverse students (S15), • State-adopted instruction (S18), • Adequate access to technology (S19), • Adequate benefits to continue work (S21)

20. Combine SESM & Core Demographics • Delete highest level credential and primary service setting (S3 & 4) • Keep degree and credential questions (S1 & 2) • Relevance in data use and analysis? • Info available from other sources? • Roles: Add Other Service Provider (Speech therapist etc.) • Separate option or add to health aide category?

21. Other Specific SESM Deletions • Paperwork (S7) • SE shared responsibility (S12) • Rationale? • SE high expectations (redundant from Core) (S14) • State adopted instructions materials: delete reference to SE and move to Core. (S18) • Relevant for all?

22. Create District Response Section • SESM questions related to (1) paraprofessional training, (2) alternative modes of communication, (3) adequate benefits. (S13, 16, 21) • Encourages enrollment in rigorous courses (q 20) • Instructional materials reflect culture (q 21) • Issue: Original policy to not differentiate school from district

23. Revisions to Core CSCS Questions • Being reviewed by staff • For clarification: • Why delete close professional relations? Drawn from Futernick study • Vary wary of changes that might affect trend monitoring

24. Delete Learning Supports Module • Revisions being explored with end-users • Why directions deemed confusing? • Other options for health-related information? • Scale inconsistency is problematic