Regional Professional Development Day

1. Regional Professional Development Day September 2009

2. Agenda for Day Child Find Update Learning Teams Update Agency-Wide Data Office Topics Lunch Learning Team Meetings

3. Webinar Participation Watch for the signal to attend Questions on cards to person emailing questions Limit side bars Use computer for handouts only�no internet access (Turn off your airport)

4.  Child Find Update from the State Directors

5. A Changing Landscape

6. Clarifying Guidance from USDE On the expectations for core instruction On use of funds (Title I, Title III, and IDEA) On how initiatives are intended to be funded (Core Instruction, RTI, PBS, UDL, Adolescent Literacy, etc)

7. Why the Changes? Perceived concerns with delays and documentation Capstone results Needed clarification of roles Statewide AEA Procedures Manual 7

8. Process of Addressing the Concerns Commissioned by AEA Chiefs Part of AEA Statewide Procedures Manual Committee of AEA and DE staff Beginning of integration of different initiatives (e.g. Iowa Core, Assessment for Learning, IDM, prior work by joint directors)

9. Major Points of Interest Perceived delay of services General Education Intervention used as a reason to not evaluate Minimal use of exclusionary factors Lack of clarity on when to suspect disability

10. Major Points of Interest Lack of proof that evaluations considered all areas of suspected disability Lack of alignment between concerns, services, and programming Use of special education staff to engage in general education interventions

11. 1. Perceived Delay in Service Disabilities were verified not just suspected Interventions were perceived to be hindering timely evaluation

12. 1. Perceived Delay in Service Suspicion and evaluation were delayed when interventions where not in place or done to standard Data sources: parent and advocate calls, I-Plan database (interventions in excess of 90 days were common)

13. Response Consent for evaluation as soon as the public agency suspects a disability The full and individual evaluation will determine: what interventions are necessary to resolve the presenting problem, and, if those interventions require special education based on eligibility and need beyond general education The purpose of the full and individual initial evaluation is two-fold: to determine the educational interventions required to resolve the presenting problem, behavior of concern, or suspected disability, including whether the educational interventions are special education (exceeds capacity of general education resources alone); and to determine if the individual is eligible for special education. In Iowa, an individual is eligible for special education when there is:� a disability (determined by assessing rate of educational progress and discrepancy from expectations); and� an instructional need that can only be met through the use of special education resources. The purpose of the full and individual initial evaluation is two-fold: to determine the educational interventions required to resolve the presenting problem, behavior of concern, or suspected disability, including whether the educational interventions are special education (exceeds capacity of general education resources alone); and to determine if the individual is eligible for special education. In Iowa, an individual is eligible for special education when there is:� a disability (determined by assessing rate of educational progress and discrepancy from expectations); and� an instructional need that can only be met through the use of special education resources.

14. 2. General Education Intervention General Education Interventions were considered a requirement for suspicion of a disability to initiate a full and individual evaluation Data source: Reports from AEA Staff, Schools and Parents

15. Response Effective core and supplementary services are critical sources of information and an expectation with rare exceptions A child may be suspected of having a disability without receiving a general education intervention

16. Response Interventions will be conducted as part of the full and individual evaluation if information they provide is still needed

17. 3. Exclusionary Factors Exclusionary factors must be considered in making disability and need decisions during Full and Individual Initial Evaluations

18. Response Will more rigorously consider these factors and exclude individuals from eligibility determination when the predominant reason for deficits are: Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, Lack of appropriate instruction in math Limited English proficiency

19. Response Ecological considerations including: socio-economic status, cultural or ethnic differences, or school attendance or mobility (multiple moves, different districts

20. 4. Clarifying What Constitutes the Suspicion of Disability Lack of clarity on what constitutes a suspicion of a disability In many places, verification of a disability was taking place prior to evaluation Data source: Reports from AEA staff and schools

21. Response Based on new child find procedures, a disability may be suspected when data support the following: student is persistently not meeting standards/expectations, and student is unique compared to peers, and performance not explained by other plausible cause, or significant medical conditions (e.g. progressive blindness) or sudden traumatic accidents (e.g. TBI) Will use new Disability Suspected Form

22. 5. Full and Individual Evaluations Evaluations of students suspected of having a disability did not consider and document all performance domains Data source: Case reviews-evaluations were in areas in which interventions were completed.

23. Response The public agency will consider available information on all performance domains used in Iowa academic, behavior, physical, health, hearing/vision, communication, and adaptive behavior Any areas where additional information is needed will be listed on the parent�s consent for evaluation.

24. 6. Aligning Concerns, Services and Programs Lack of alignment between stated concerns, effective instructional practices, and special education programming Data Source: Capstone study

25. Response

26. Response

27. 7. Special Education�s Role in General Education Intervention Effective core instruction and general education interventions are the predominant responsibility of general education Yet, special education support and related service staff spend a large proportion of time on general education interventions Data source: OSEP guidance, NCLB, Capstone

28. Response Special education support and related service staff will spend increasing time on issues of: Suspicion of disability, Evaluation, and, Service to student�s with IEPs.

29. Response Special education support and related service staff will focus their work toward special education students and targeted students in general education settings

30. Students with IEPs What can we accomplish for students in special education? What does the achievement of our students with IEPs look like now?

33. What About Students with IEPs in Heartland? On a piece of paper make two predictions What % of 4th grade students IEPs are proficient in Reading? Given appropriate instruction, what % could be proficient?

34. Post Your Results Using one of the dots on your table, place your prediction of where our students could be on the chart.

35. 4th Grade Reading

36. Discussion Questions Were there differences in your predictions? Why? Do we collectively have high expectations for our students with IEPs? What are the implications for our work if we do? What are the implications if we don�t?

37. New Updates New guidance from the State Directors Decision making about domains Consent form Educational Evaluation Reports Process and paperwork flow Tools for General Education Action planning

38. Restructuring Iowa�s Child Find Process Read page nine At your table talk about the following: What questions does this answer for you? What questions does this create for you? What changes in your practice does it represent?

39. Restructuring Iowa�s Child Find Process Process the rest of this document this afternoon in your learning teams. All members read the document Have a discussion about what you have read Facilitator send questions to Anita Davids. adavids@aea11.k12.ia.us

40. Suspicion of Disability Gen Ed Teacher, LEA Rep, AEA Rep, and Parent must participate Does not have to be completed in a meeting, but that appears to be most efficient Work with team members prior to meeting to gather information

41. Considering all Domains Look at Iowa Performance Domains document Use during the Consent for Evaluation conversation when you are considering each domain to determine whether it will be assessed Provides guiding questions that can help you when you�re determining if a given domain outside of your area of expertise needs to be examined further

42. Decision Making about Domains This tool has been developed to assist with decision making It will continue to evolve as we work together and learn more How will you use this tool to work together as a team in decision making?

43. Consent for Individual Educational Evaluation Samples of new form included in your materials today Web form should be utilized. If disability is not suspected, the student will be removed from the Web IEP system Take a minute to review the sample

44. Problem Not Validated When a problem in a domain is not validated, document the data that brought you to that conclusion in the EER in the �What are the areas of concern?� section Include the sources of information Discuss progress, discrepancy, and need

45. Rigor of Evaluation

46. �What are the Areas of Concern�

47. EER Review the highlighted section of the report This is how areas assessed, but problem not validated will be documented Initial problem validation clearly indicates that SE not warranted This is the format we will use for now (if we get different guidance from the State Directors we will let you know)

48. EER We know that you may have more evaluations than in the past Keep your summaries brief All necessary information must be included, but long descriptions not necessary Look at example�are there ways it could be more succinct?

50. Process and Paperwork Flow Review the initial paperwork flow document Again, this is how we will operate for now We will let you know when/if there is more guidance

51. Tips for Disability Suspected Meeting Note that this process does not have to be done during a meeting, but all required members must participate A meeting seems to be most efficient way to ensure this This will be provided to teachers at regional child find meetings

52. Tools for General Education Working Together for Children is being revised Don�t use older versions You will be notified when new ones are available

53. DON�T FORGET THE BIG IDEAS

54. General education interventions belong to general education

55. Evaluations begin when a disability is suspected

56. Evaluations must be comprehensive

57. Evaluation Does Not Always Lead to Disability

58. Next Steps Reflect on your self assessment from the discipline meeting Think about the settings where you work where your LEA partners are in their capacity to support general education interventions Identify some next steps Share with your Partnership Director

59. Gradual Release of Responsibility

60. Learning Teams

61. Outcomes for Learning Teams

62. 62 Current State You already engage in a variety of regular collaborative activities: informal individual group sharing joint work Informal - basic stage of collaboration and generally takes place in the hallway, bathroom or teaming room when AEA staff meet informally during the day. While teams may discuss the instructional aspects of their work, rarely does this dramatically impact ahange or advancement in practices. However, it does promote collegial relationships among the staff. Individaul assistanceInformal - basic stage of collaboration and generally takes place in the hallway, bathroom or teaming room when AEA staff meet informally during the day. While teams may discuss the instructional aspects of their work, rarely does this dramatically impact ahange or advancement in practices. However, it does promote collegial relationships among the staff. Individaul assistance

63. An Amazing Adventure � The evolution of each learning team is an amazing adventure -- an adventure of risk taking, collegiality, and leadership development.� --Allen Smith, superintendent, Edenton- Chowan Public Schools, Tyner, N.C. Do this on your own. Then, do it at your table. Purpose: Reflect on your views of learning; reflect on the ways groups can learn better together.Do this on your own. Then, do it at your table. Purpose: Reflect on your views of learning; reflect on the ways groups can learn better together.

64. Activity: Self Assessment of Characteristics Each person will individually reflect on a team that you have participated on. Read the statements on the sheet and check the ones that best represent the experiences you have had with that team. Share out your experiences at your table. (conduct during first learning team meeting)

65. The Role of the Facilitator Submit topic, goal, name of facilitator, team members and meeting dates online by September 24 (test pilot) Submit meeting notes (big ideas, decisions made and ideas for next meeting) to a designated site. Attend 2-3 training meetings (approximately 2-3 hours in length) to learn technology tools to facilitate team learning. First training will be offered on Oct. 21st, 23rd, and 30th Registration information will be in the Connection

66. Individual Role Each person will log their learning team time on SSLog. Fully participate in learning team meetings and allow for involvement by all team members Actively engage in new practices based on learning team work

67. New SSLog Internal Data Entry Use Internal AEA for logging of: Mentoring of AEA staff AEA Learning Teams Delivery of Internal Professional Development New Internal data entry features will go live Thursday, September 17th

68. Select: Internal AEA & click Continue ForFor

69. Learning Teams Required: Date (log each date separately) Total time Optional: Teaching standard Content Description Initiative ForFor

70. Getting Started Choose a facilitator Select topic Generate goal Set meeting dates Your group facilitator will document this information using Test Pilot See the Connection next week for Test Pilot address

71. Goal Stem By (when), given (condition), all team members will demonstrate (behavior), (criterion).

72. Example Goals By May of 2010, given intervention plans and/or IEPs, all team members will demonstrate an example of progress monitoring and/or mastery monitoring utilizing decision-making rules which earns at least a 4 on the innovation configurations for Progress Monitoring and Formative Evaluation. By May of 2010, given a professional development initiative, all team members will demonstrate the ability to design a system for monitoring implementation that includes 4 of 4 basic elements. By May of 2010, given a set of instructional practices, all team members will demonstrate the ability to design formative assessments to monitor learning that include 7 of 7 basic elements. By May of 2010, given the 7 characteristic of partnership principles, all team members will demonstrate the ability to design professional learning including these characteristics.

73. Logistics: When and Where When to Meet At least monthly meetings (four learning team meetings are already set opposite office meetings) On-contract Times convenient for your team Where to Meet On or off-site Location with minimal distractions Location with internet access

74. A Few More Things�.. Team names�.best team names announced at November meetings Considering team tee-shirts? Send design to Sol in graphics Indicate # of transfers needed Buy your own tee-shirts Wear tee-shirts and jeans to November meeting

75. Reciprocity of Accountability �Accountability must be a reciprocal process. For every increment of performance I demand from you, I have equal responsibility to provide you with the capacity to meet that expectation. Likewise, for every investment you make in my skill and knowledge, I have a reciprocal responsibility to demonstrate some new increment in performance.This is the principle of �reciprocity of accountability.� Richard Elmore, 2000