1 / 50

IDEA B State Advisory panel

IDEA B State Advisory panel. Wednesday, March 7 th , 2018 OSDE Hodge Building. Agenda. 12:30 – 1:00: Registration 1:00 – 2:15: Updates 2:15 – 2:30: Break 2:30-3:15: Sub Committees/Workgroup 3:15-3:45: Report Out 3:45 – 4:00: Public Comment. Determinations and Monitoring for LEAS.

knupp
Télécharger la présentation

IDEA B State Advisory panel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IDEA B State Advisory panel Wednesday, March 7th, 2018 OSDE Hodge Building

  2. Agenda • 12:30 – 1:00: Registration • 1:00 – 2:15: Updates • 2:15 – 2:30: Break • 2:30-3:15: Sub Committees/Workgroup • 3:15-3:45: Report Out • 3:45 – 4:00: Public Comment

  3. Determinations and Monitoring for LEAS

  4. Levels of Support INTEGRATED MONITORING ACTIVITIES COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES • Letter of Assurance • Data correction (Prong 1) • Improvement plan (only necessary for data compliance if the district is substantially below target) • Data verification (Prong 2) • Front-loaded technical assistance • Targeted technical assistance • Self-assessment • Professional development modules • Improvement plan • Data retreat • Targeted on-site monitoring • Comprehensive on-site monitoring • Withheld funds

  5. FY18 Levels of Support • Level 1 – 238 Districts • Level 2 – 284 Districts • Level 3 – 22 Districts • Level 4 – None Districts http://tinyurl.com/y848c9yt

  6. Correction of Non-Compliance • Each state is required to report all findings of noncompliance on APR indicators 9 through 13. • Any district that is not 100 percent compliant must resolve all noncompliance and confirm its resolution (“prong 1” activities) and then be monitored for continuous compliance (“prong 2” activities). http://tinyurl.com/y848c9yt

  7. Compliance Monitoring • Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 through the Grants Management System (GMS) • Tabs: • Contact Information • DDP • Indicator 11 • Indicator 12 • Indicator 13 • Improvement Plan • Specific Categories – Child Find • Discipline Policy • Data Review http://tinyurl.com/y848c9yt

  8. Compliance Indicators

  9. Compliance Indicators

  10. Non-Compliance Comparison FY17 FY18 Indicators 9/10 – 8 Indicator 11 (Child Find) – 62 Indicator 12 (Early Childhood Transition) – 12 Indicator 13 (Secondary Transition) – 23 Total: 88 • Indicators 9/10 – 61 • Indicator 11 (Child Find) – 67 • Indicator 12 (Early Childhood Transition) – 9 • Indicator 13 (Secondary Transition) – 6 • Total: 136 http://tinyurl.com/y848c9yt

  11. Timelines *Noncompliance may also be found during monitoring activities. If found, additional correction will be required on a different timeframe.

  12. SIGNIFICANT DISPRORTIONALITY

  13. State Level Decisions

  14. Why These Decisions Matter • The threshold defines the lower limit of “significant” differential treatment. • Cell and n sizes determine which districts and race/ethnicity --category pairs get evaluated. • The number of years above the threshold determines significance. • Reasonable progress is a measure of district improvement.

  15. Stakeholder Recommendations: Risk Ratio Thresholds • Overall: differentiate thresholds by category (63% said yes)

  16. State Proposal: Risk Ratio Thresholds • Differentiate thresholds by three categories • Average the community and district recommendations • Discipline: 2.25 • Identification: 2.60 • Placement: 2.50 Justification: Discipline is a heavy issue in Oklahoma and districts should be held to higher standards for it as compared to identification and placement, over which they have less immediate control.

  17. Consecutive Years Stakeholders’ Recommendation: State Proposal: Use three consecutive years of within-category data to determine when a district is significantly disproportionate in that particular category Tracking is within-category only Tracking will be used as early notification of potential problems 91% of participants supported the option of identifying significant disproportionality using three years of disproportionality data (9% said two years)

  18. Reasonable Progress Stakeholders’ Recommendation: State Proposal: Adopt a measure of reasonable progress that includes an interim threshold and a percentage drop beyond that NUMBERS: TBD When that benchmark is met, the district will not be required to set aside funds for CCEIS but will be required to maintain continuous improvement until the target threshold is met. • 82% of participants supported the option of using a measure of reasonable progress to remove districts from the “significant” list • A minority consensus recommended using a double marker: decrease by a certain percentage after reaching an interim threshold • No one has a good sense of what either should be

  19. APR/SPP

  20. Changing Assessment Proficiency Targets • Question: Given recent changes in assessments, should Oklahoma revise its state proficiency baseline and targets in the Annual Performance Report to OSEP for FFY 2016 through 2018? • Rationale: To bring baseline and targets closer to expected proficiency scores resulting from changes in assessment tools in FFY 2014 and 2016.

  21. Historic Data Trends & Targets • Former baselines were set to 2005 data: 35.0 and 34.2 for reading & math. • Former targets are 0.6 and 0.8 times the current baselines. • Former targets are 3x and 3.3x the current results.

  22. Decisions • Reset baseline in APR FFY 2016 to FFY 2016 scores: 14.0 & 14.75 for reading and math • Reset targets for APR FFY 2016 through 2018, with slight annual increases (see next slide) • Complete overhaul of targets will be required for the FFY 2019 APR

  23. Updated Annual Targets Reading Proficiency Targets Math Proficiency Targets

  24. Other States’ Targets Reading Target (Score) Math Target (Score) Kansas: 11% (12%) Missouri: 18% (19%) Arkansas: 37% (16%) Colorado: 31% (7%) New Mexico: 60% (7%) Texas: 87% (42%) Nebraska: 100% (35%) • Kansas: 15% (15%) • Missouri: 27% (29%) • Arkansas: 32% (13%) • Colorado: 33% (8.5%) • New Mexico: 65% (6%) • Texas: 87% (35%) • Nebraska: 100% (49%)

  25. FFY 2016 Target Data Reading Results Math Results • If districts do not improve, between five and 15 districts would be added to the total “below baseline” each year the target increases by 0.25.

  26. IDEA Part B FFY19 Grant Application

  27. Existing (Managed) Contracts • Dynamic Learning Maps • Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment • Public Consulting Group • OK EDPlan is the system that OSDE uses to enable districts to develop and write IEPs according to IDEA and to gather data. • Good Shepherd • Provides training to administrators, educators, service providers and families regarding challenging behaviors and ASD. • Oklahoma Department of Mental Health Substance and Abuse Services (ODMHSAS) • Provides wrap around and Tier 3 Behavioral Intervention services to public school districts to address the needs of at-risk students regarding disciplinary actions.

  28. Existing (Managed) Contracts • CCOSA • First year Special Education Director training and mentoring • OUHSC Autism Center • Comprehensive professional development services for educating children and youth with autism spectrum disorder and related disabilities (MESA Project/Early Foundations). • Sooner Success • Partial funding for Sooner Success for local implementation, community based support and training systems for families, educators, and other service providers. • OSU Special Education Resolution Center • Mediation and due process services and professional development for parents of children with disabilities.

  29. Existing (Managed) Contracts • Oklahoma Parents Center • Parent training and data collection to provide parents with necessary tools and supports for parental involvement with serving children with disabilities. • Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education (TAESE) • Training and orientation to the Oklahoma State Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP). • Task 12 • Task 12 is a collaboration of states to collaboratively establish and maintain a national assessment and training system for educational interpreters. • Voyager – Sopris • LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) training to Literacy Coaches

  30. Existing (Managed) Contracts • Voyager – LETRS • Professional development to provide educators the tools and support to effectively instruct students in language arts. • Department of Rehabilitation Services (OKDRS) • MOU with DRS - includes funding for Secondary Transition Conference, accessible instructional materials. • OU Poll • Consulting/polling for secondary transition data collection for Post-secondary activities required by indicator 14.

  31. Existing (Managed) Contracts • OU Transition Assessment Goals Generator (OU-TAGG) • The University of Oklahoma Zarrow Center conducts 10 six hour trainings for special educators. Attendees are provided TAGG credits to use for students. • Liberty Braille • IPads, Braille services and document storage for children with disabilities. • OSU Able Tech • Assistive technology services for students, support for Oklahoma's State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) and short/long term device loans.

  32. Existing (Managed) Contracts • OU Transition Assessment Goals Generator (OU-TAGG) • The University of Oklahoma Zarrow Center conducts 10 six hour trainings for special educators. Attendees are provided TAGG credits to use for students. • Liberty Braille • IPads, Braille services and document storage for children with disabilities. • OSU Able Tech • Assistive technology services for students, support for Oklahoma's State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) and short/long term device loans.

  33. New (Managed) Contracts • OSB-IPads • IPads and other devices for students/faculty at OSB. • OSD-IPads • IPads and other devices for students/faculty at OSD. • Project 613 (in-house) • $550,000.00 (total spent so far is $307,544.94) • Reimbursement to districts for travel, substitutes, registration at OSDE sponsored events/trainings. • Project 615 (in-house) • $1,774,732.00 • Professional Development funds allocated to districts ($16 dollars per child).

  34. New (Managed) Contracts • Northeastern State University • 3 year alternative masters level Speech-Language Pathologists program to provide services as employees in public schools. • Oklahoma School for the Deaf (OSD) – Outreach Coordinator and Training • OSD will be providing training for educational interpreters working in the Oklahoma Public Schools and consultation to schools. • Today's Therapy Solutions • Update of the related services technical assistance document and provides professional development regarding related services • Project 616 (in-house) • $200,000.00 (total spent so far is $6,467.69) • Certification Examination Reimbursement

  35. New (Managed) Contracts • Oklahoma School for the Blind (OSB) – Outreach Coordinator(s) • Contract to provide a consultant from the Oklahoma School for the Blind to public schools. • PEPPER • Online Professional Development System through OK EDPlan • Oklahoma Deaf Blind Technical Assistance Project (OKDBTAP) • Awareness training regarding low incidence disabilities and training interveners in public schools to serve students with disabilities.

  36. New (Managed) Contracts • Oklahoma School for the Deaf (OSD) Project ECCO (Enriching Children's Communication Opportunities) • The purpose of this contract is for the Oklahoma School for the Deaf to administer the Project ECCO services (Enriching Children's Communication Opportunities). • University of Central Oklahoma • Provides behavioral expertise in Oklahoma public schools with limited behavioral intervention resources (30 consultations for the remaining fiscal year). • Qualtrics • Online Survey system - used to collect data and outcomes evaluations.

  37. Potential • Technical Assistance Center for Excellence in Special Education • We currently work with TAESE to provide an orientation for IDEA Part B State Advisory Panel Members. • Increased Services: • LEA Director Orientation Webinar Series • DRSE Workgroups (for staff training on topics of mediation, due process, complaints, facilitation) • State Complaint overflow • Technical Assistance support to review the Special Education Handbook and Policies • Technical Assistance support for Correctional Facilities and education (working with Federal Programs)

  38. Potential • Development of Professional Development Modules to host on Pepper • We will be working with teachers, districts, and other agencies to create additional PD modules for the Pepper system. • These modules are used for district training, corrective action plans, complaints, and monitoring. • OK EdPlan Goals Progress Monitoring • We will be implementing a system enhancement for OK EdPlan to monitor progress of IEP goals for individual students.

  39. Potential • Behavior System RFP • We will be going out to bid for an online behavior intervention system for teachers to use to conduct functional behavior assessments and create behavior intervention plans. • Paraprofessional (instructional/academic) • Conferences • We will be working with partners to host a Special Education Law Conference. • We will be working with stakeholders to host a Behavior/Mental Health Summit.

  40. Potential • Additional activities based on IDEA B Panel recommendations • Statewide Dyslexia Training • Statewide Autism Training

  41. Public Comment • View the IDEA Part B Draft FFY18 Grant Application and Budget Worksheet • View the IDEA Part C Draft FFY18 Grant Application • Out for Public Comment (until April 27, 2018)

  42. Information Needed for Annual Report and Recommendations

  43. Content for Panel Annual Report 1. Letter: A letter written by Panel chair providing an introduction to the annual report. 2. Table of Contents 3. List of Membership and Officers 4. Annual Panel Priorities: A list of key priority areas addressed by the Panel. 5. Data Used to Establish Panel Priorities 6. Key Activities and Accomplishments: A brief statement of activities and actions taken by the Panel to address annual priorities and goals. Information should reflect Panel involvement and responsiveness to State issues and public concerns. 7. Identified Areas of Concern: Areas where the Panel recognizes continued efforts are needed to improve the education of children with disabilities. 8. Panel Advice and Recommendations: A list of advice and recommendations for the SEA to consider. 9. Future Issues: A list of possible issues that the Panel might address in the future. Many of these issues may result from efforts to implement changes in State or federal law to meet children’s needs in the State.

  44. Subcommittees

  45. Sub Committees • Teacher Preparation/Certification – Guidelines for Special Education Certification and Recruitment • Behavior and Suspension – Jamie Lahey • Dyslexia – Chair: Michele Scott • Autism – Chair: Mandy Seward

  46. Sub Committees • 45 Minutes • Identified Areas of Concern: Areas where the Panel recognizes continued efforts are needed to improve the education of children with disabilities. • Advice and Recommendations: A list of advice and recommendations for the SEA to consider. • Future Issues: A list of possible issues that the Panel might address in the future. • Recommendations for FY19 Budget

  47. Next Meeting • Next Meeting: June 7, 2018 • Topics: • Legislative Updates, • Evaluation and Eligibility, • Operating Guidelines, • Annual Report and Recommendations

  48. PUBLIC COMMENT

More Related