To hear this webinar you will need to choose your audio mode.

1. Effective Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilitiespresented by Larry Gloeckler, Executive DirectorSpecial Education Institute of the International Center for Leadership in Education, Inc. www.LeaderEd.com To hear this webinar you will need to choose your audio mode. Go to the control panel in the upper right corner of your screen and click the button of how you will be listening. Your choices: Use telephone Use mic & speakers If using mic & speakers make sure your volume is turned up so you can hear If using the telephone Dial: 312-878-0222 Access Code: 582-278-797 Audio PIN: unique PIN shown in audio control panel on screen Technical difficulties? Contact Debra Light at (518) 723-2071. All participants are on mute.

2. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act IDEA funds are provided under three authorities: • $11.3 billion is available under Part B Grants to States • $400 million is available under Part B Preschool Grants • $500 million is available under Part C Grants for Infants and Families Using ARRA Funds to Drive School Reform and Improvement from U.S. Department of Education • Framing questions for decision-making • Examples of potential uses of funds specific to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Title I, and IDEA, Part B programs www.LeaderEd.com/StimulusFunding.html

3. Webinar Guidelines • All participants are on mute during the entire webinar. • Presentation portion will be 45 minutes • Questions and Answers portion will be 15 minutes • To ask a question type it in the question control panel in the upper right corner of your screen. • Content questions will be answered in the order they were received at the end of the webinar presentation. • We will send you a follow up email with the PowerPoint presentation and helpful resources

4. Agenda • Strategies that work best in improving performance for students receiving special education services and why. • Dilemmas educators face and how they resolve them. • The most common missteps when struggling to improve results for these students. • Question and Answer

5. Effective Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Students with DisabilitiesMay 8, 2009 Lawrence Gloeckler,Executive Director, Special Education Institute

6. Special Education Institute Assuring students with disabilities are part of all the research, technical assistance and leadership efforts we undertake • Leadership Training • Needs Assessment • Data analysis for decision making and resource allocation • Strategic planning and implementation

7. Special Education Institute – May 2009 State Presentations Other TA LEA technical assistance

8. Fundamental ChallengeChanging the expectations of educators, parents, community members and students regarding what is possible

9. Change Dr. Richard Jones • Revolutionary in spirit, evolutionary in time frame • Schools produce the results they are designed to produce • Different results require change in the system, not simply demanding the system work better. • School-change occurs guided by leadership, driven by data, supported by continuous professional learning. • Begin with the end in mind • Beware of changing too quickly or without a clear destination.

10. Sustaining Success Valerie Chrisman • Eighty-three low performing schools that showed sustained growth – 273 growth for only a year. • Neither specific characteristics at schools or qualities of students account for difference between successful and unsuccessful schools. • Rather how well a school operates, quality of leadership and instructional programs and practices.

11. A Vision People with Disabilities Will: • Live Independently • Enjoy Self Determination • Make Choices • Pursue Meaningful Careers • Enjoy Full Inclusion and Integration in the Economic, Political, Social, Cultural and Educational Mainstream of American Society New York State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, June 2003

12. Strengths • The general and special education staff are dedicated and caring. • The teachers of students receiving special education services are generally viewed by parents very positively. • The relationship between general education and special education faculty are viewed as collegial and supportive.

13. Strengths • There is a general agreement that throughout districts, there are “pockets of excellence” in serving students with disabilities that would be worthy of replication across the district. • There is strong agreement at all levels as to the importance of evolving as a more inclusive school district. • Both general education and special education students benefited from inclusion.

14. Strengths • Students in inclusion classes appear to be making greater effort then when in self-contained classes and behaviors are generally more appropriate. • The co-teaching model has expanded opportunities for special needs students to access the general education curriculum. • Co-teaching is viewed as an instructional strength when partners are kept together from year to year and has also helped in reducing behavior problems.

15. Issues • There is no systematic intervention system across the district. This has led to what many participants in the group discussions believe is an over-referral of students to special education. • General education teachers would like more training on intervention strategies for struggling students.

16. Issues • There is a general perception that expectations for students with disabilities are too low. • General education teachers are left on their own to figure out how to implement accommodations, and there is no process to determine if accommodations are being implemented correctly.

17. Issues • The curriculum offered to students with disabilities is not systematically aligned with the general education curriculum, and not aligned from elementary, to middle, to high school. Career and technical education programs are not easily accessible.

18. Issues • The issue of inconsistency of programs among buildings is identified frequently at all levels. This was considered problematic for students as they transition to the next level as well as for students who are mobile within the district. There is little communication regarding programs and services between buildings. • There is consistent perception that the culture of the district, particularly at the secondary level, results in a “my kids/your kids” environment. There is not a perception that all staff are responsible for all of the students.

19. Issues • There is substantial agreement that new programs are frequently implemented without proper training, staff development and follow through to ensure deep implementation. • The curriculum in self-contained classes appears to be teacher and building driven with inconsistency across classrooms and buildings.

20. Issues • Teachers feel that districts change direction and program approaches too frequently.

21. Issues • There has been a lack of training on the collaborative model. Training has not been presented to special education and general education teachers together. Recently hired teachers have not had training in the model. This has lead to teachers having to “figure out” how to implement the model effectively. • Schools are using co-teaching as their inclusion model with little, if any other, program approaches available to students receiving special education services.

22. Issues • There is inadequate common planning time for teachers involved in the collaborative model. This issue is raised consistently as an obstacle to having an effective program. • Limited use of various co-teaching approaches with teach and assist being the predominant model.

23. Recommendations • Districts should convene a representative group of key personnel in order to establish a strategic plan for services to students identified as needing special education services with a clear vision and laser like focus on improving performance for these students. • Thoughtfully and purposefully create a culture of high expectations among all staff for students with disabilities. This is a critical first step in improving student performance. General education faculty need to view themselves as the front line of support for these students.

24. Recommendations • Districts should review current intervention systems and consider establishing a more data driven, systematic approach for struggling students. Strong intervention systems in highly effective schools result in better student performance, fewer students not meeting performance expectations and a reduction in any unnecessary reliance on special education. The intervention system must be owned by general education.

25. Intervention System Laney, 2008

26. Recommendations • General education teachers and administrators need to have greater responsibility for educating students receiving special education services. Special education faculty need to become part of collaborative teams at the building level responsible for all students. The isolation between general education and special education teachers needs to be eliminated.

27. Faculty Arrangements • Collaborative approaches work best – if done right • Co-teaching • Team teaching

28. Essential Tasks for Building Administrators in Ensuring a Successful Co-Teaching Program: • Provide ongoing professional development regarding the design and implementation of co-teaching. • Arrange site visits for staff to schools that are implementing co-teaching successfully.

29. Monitor the fidelity of implementation of the co-teaching model, effective instruction, and positive classroom/behavior management • Communicate with parents about the use of co-teaching through school newsletters, curriculum nights, and parent training opportunities.

30. Rigor and Relevance Framework And Co-Teaching Model Laney, 2008

31. Develop data-driven strategies to improve performance. These strategies should be used at all levels, from the administrative level to make policy decisions to the classroom level to make instructional decisions. Special Education Review March 2005

32. Physics: Co-Taught Section(Class Average 67%) Laney, 2008

33. Recommendations • The issue of building to building and grade to grade consistency is often identified as an issue by school districts. A review of building level practices needs to be undertaken to identify those that have resulted in the highest student performance. Those best practices should be made available across district programs. Communication between buildings needs to be strengthened so that there is a heightened awareness of best practices and high performance across the district.

34. Recommendations • The transition between elementary, middle school and high school are viewed as problematic. Districts need to establish a cohesive strategy to support students and teachers during these transitions.

35. Recommendations • Staff development offered by districts needs to support the implementation of any programmatic recommendations adopted by the district. Staff development needs to be data driven, highly focused on the most important issues and persistent over time. The issues cannot be resolved through “one-shot” training. There needs to be a multi-year, persistent focus on the issues identified as most important.

36. African American 14.8% Hispanic 54.0% White 31.2% Enrollment (7 & 8) - 619 Freeport Intermediate School Ethnic Distribution 75.6% Mobility LEP 5.5% 22.3 Economically Disadvantaged We can teach all children.

37. Freeport Intermediate Goal: Student assessment results show NO significant difference in performance between any student groups.

38. FIS 10 YEAR READING COMPARISON 98 99.4 98.3 98.1 99.4 98.7 98.8 98.1 97.8 100 97.4 96.5 96.2 96.2 96 95.6 95 94.3 94 93 99.1 92 95 94 92 91.5 97.7 95 92 96.8 90.5 91 90 90 88 93 88 88.8 83 85 82 82 80 81 80 80 76 75 75 72 70 64 70 65 63 65 63 59 64 60 61 54 55 50 52 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 All Students A. American Hispanic White Eco. Dis.

39. FIS 10 YEAR MATH COMPARISON 99.4 99.4 99 99 100 99.1 98.9 98.7 98.6 96 100 96 95 99 95.7 94.6 96 99 95 95 93.3 93.2 91.8 96 92 90 95 99.5 99.1 97 99 89 86.2 90 95 94.9 84 91 77 80 71 70 69 70 68 66 60 55 49 56 50 46 49 46 40 40 36 36 45 33 30 22 20 20 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 AllStudents A. American Hispanic White Eco. Dis.

40. Who Are We? BROCKTON HIGH SCHOOL • Comprehensive 9 – 12 • Enrollment: approximately 4,300 • Poverty Level: 60% • 30 different languages represented • 1/3 do not speak English as their primary language • Approximately 10% enrolled in Transitional Bilingual Education Program • Approximately 10% receive Special Education Services

41. Changing Attitudes • Everyone is responsible for every student • Believing that every student CAN and MUST • Our responsibility: to figure out how to help

42. Putting Programs in Place • Inclusion, Inclusion, Inclusion • Intervention Strategies • Co-teaching Initiative

43. Regents English Examination Students with Disabilities Since 1997, there has been more than 354% increase in the number of students with disabilities tested. Of the students tested in 2006, 65% achieved a score between 55-100. Final: April 2007 Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

44. Regents Sequential Mathematics Course I and Math A Examinations* Students with Disabilities Since 1997, there has been a 323% increase in the number of students with disabilities tested. Of the students tested in 2006, 70% achieved a score between 55-100. *Results beginning in 1999 reflect students taking either of the two math examinations. Sequential Mathematics Course I examination was discontinued in 2002. Public Schools-Including Charter Schools Final: April 2007

45. Questions and Answers • This is the end of the presentation portion. • Submit questions at this time and stay on to hear the answers. • If you are logging off, thank you for attending and we will email you with follow-up information. For more information about the Special Education Institute, Larry Gloecker, and ARRA www.LeaderEd.com

46. Thank you for attending!We hope you found the information valuable. For more information about how we can support you visit www.LeaderEd.com Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments. We encourage and value your feedback. 518-399-2776 | Info@LeaderEd.com

47. www.LeaderEd.com Larry Gloeckler, Senior Vice President and Keynote Speaker Larry is available to work with your district or agency and to speak at state or national conferences. For scheduling information, please contact Karen Wilkins at (518) 723-2057 or Karen@LeaderEd.com. www.leadered.com/aboutgloeckler.html

48. 17th Annual Model Schools Conference June 28 - July 1, 2009 Atlanta Visit www.LeaderEd.com for more information

49. Lawrence Gloeckler, Executive DirectorSpecial Education InstituteInternational Center for Leadership in Education, Inc. 1587 Route 146 Rexford, NY 12148 Phone (518) 399-2776 Fax (518) 399-7607 E-mail: larry@LeaderEd.com www.LeaderEd.com