1 / 24

Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. Office of Exceptional Children Cathy Boshamer, Director John Payne, Team Lead. November 7, 2013. Steven Lee Davis – A Child’s Story. Steven Lee Davis (SLD) is really….

lilian
Télécharger la présentation

Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

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. Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Office of Exceptional Children Cathy Boshamer, Director John Payne, Team Lead November 7, 2013

  2. Steven Lee Davis – A Child’s Story

  3. Steven Lee Davis (SLD) is really…

  4. Critical Findings for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) • Students with SLD make up about 50% of the SWD population • Significant risk of not graduating with a regular diploma • Decisions in elementary school can take students off path for a regular diploma • 17 states fall below the nationwide rate of 68 percent; SC is one of these states

  5. Findings for SC Students with SLD • Graduation rate with a regular diploma is 48 percent • Graduation gap is 35 percentage points between all students and students with disabilities • Drop-out rate for students with SLD is high • Generally, more students with SLD drop-out than leave with a regular diploma (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2013)

  6. Early Interventions • About 45% of children receiving Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) go on to receive special education • Monitoring Observations: Many RtI programs with varied success; some do not follow tiered approach nor are they being implemented with fidelity

  7. Initial Evaluations • Increased compliance to timely evaluations • Some evaluations focus ONLY on the disability category (e.g., speech eval) • Instances of “re-evals” within a few months following • Some lack of evaluation planning OVER 18,000 Initial Evaluations in 2012

  8. Individualized Education Programs • Karvonen, et al (2011) found that SC IEPs were often vague; were not linked to standards; did not vary accommodations; and did not link present levels to IEP goals • IEP goals and present levels are the #1 area of noncompliance from onsite monitoring for multiple years • IEP implementation is the #1 finding from formal IDEA dispute resolution complaints

  9. Accommodations Usage– All SWD

  10. SWD Receiving Oral Admin of ELA by Grade

  11. Least Restrictive Environment

  12. Least Restrictive Environment

  13. LRE – “Self Contained” 2012 Specific Learning Disability Inside Regular Class For Less Than 40% Of Day (6-21)

  14. SLD Exit Reasons (2012)

  15. SLD Exit Reasons by Age (2012) SLD Age and Exit Reason

  16. Post-secondary Transition – ALL SWD • For 2011 – 2012, 90% compliance for post-secondary transition IEPs and services • A leading issue of noncompliance from onsite monitoring

  17. Now Back to Steven Lee Davis (SLD)

  18. What should we ask ourselves? • Are our Response-to-Intervention programs being implemented with fidelity? • Did he get specific interventions early on to help him with his academic struggles? • Are we using evidence-based practices? • Did he get interventions long enough? Did they work? Did we have a tiered approach?

  19. What should we ask ourselves? • Are we completing comprehensive evaluations of EACH child that identifies ALL their special education and related service needs (whether or not commonly linked to the child’s category of disability)? • How might a different IEP and services affect his current/future performance?

  20. What should we ask ourselves? • Are we making individualized determinations about LRE placements; IEP goals; related services; and supplementary aids and supports? • Did we think about looking at math? Behavior? BIPs? FBAs? Did we attempt supplemental aids?

  21. What should we ask ourselves? • Are we making individualized decisions, based on information and data, about specific accommodations that will enable the child to access and progress in the general education curriculum? • If he had problems with sounds/stories being read aloud (aka as SLD with listening comprehension), how appropriate was oral administration? What else could we have tried?

  22. What should we ask ourselves? • Are we, through innovative approaches, preparing children for life after they leave school? • How could we have better prepared S.L.D. for high school? For NOT dropping out? For adult ed? For college? For life?

  23. The OEC is here to help!! • Training on Common Core for SWD • Training on UDL with State Personnel Development Grant • Free week-long Research to Practice Institute • Manuals and Other Supporting Documentation • Monitoring Schools/Districts for Compliance • Providing ongoing technical assistance • Reviewing eligibility guidelines and processes • Data mining to understand how improvements can be made • Developing a 6-year State Systemic Plan to improve outcomes for children with disabilities • Collaborating, collaborating, collaborating

  24. THANK YOU! For more information about initiatives; to obtain technical assistance or professional development; or for questions, please contact: THE OFFICE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 1429 SENATE STREET, STE 808 COLUMBIA, SC 29201 803-734-8224 HTTP://ED.SC.GOV/AGENCY/AC/EXCEPTIONAL-CHILDREN/

More Related