connecticut state department of educationfiles.serc.co/bts15/am/csde presentations/back to...
TRANSCRIPT
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Special Education Data Updates
Diane Murphy
Performance Office
September 16, 2015
SEDAC Data Cleaning Reports
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Reported as “Eligible” in Eval Timelines, but student not reported in SEDAC
BEST PRACTICE – Districts should be uploading evaluation timelines data Monthly! This practice will improve PSIS Nexus and Special Ed Status accuracy and is CRITICAL for the accuracy of Statewide Assessment data that is submitted to SBAC and CTAA! Additionally, this will ensure accurate reporting of R/S and Ed 166 data that require the special ed status of the student.
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student Missing Nexus Information in PSIS
These students are reported in the SEDAC October 1 archive, but Nexus District is blank in PSIS Registration. • Most common response: “We requested records, but never received any.”
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Record Transfer Policy Sec. 10-220h. Transfer of student records. When a student enrolls in a new district, the new district must notify the previous district of the student’s enrollment, within 2 business days; and the previous district must, within 10 business days, send the student’s records (including both the cumulative and confidential file) to the new district.
The school/district in which the student previously attended school (1) shall transfer the student's education records to the new school district no later than ten days after receipt of such notification, and (2) if the student's parent or guardian did not give written authorization for the transfer of such records, the previous district shall send notification of the transfer to the parent or guardian at the same time that it transfers the records.
If the transferring student is a student receiving Special Education and related services:
• The new district must provide services that are comparable to the services described in the student’s existing IEP (even if it has lapsed) until the school district convenes a PPT to either develop a new IEP (which may or may not require conducting new evaluations) or adopt the existing IEP.
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
New Data Cleaning Reports
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Annual Reviews DUE:
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DM- Program Codes State Law required the department to issue new facility (organization) codes and, in the near future, PPRs for all Programs. The rule was instituted to account for students being educated in non-traditional and/or segregated settings. There were many allegations of programs existing across the state that did not have certified staff and did not meet the minimum 180 day/900 total school hours per year regulations. The CSDE is now monitoring all programs, their locations, staff certification, as well as student enrollment. Programs are now required to be reported in all student and staff-level data collections including PSIS, SEDAC, TCS and EDS!
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Open Programs Oct. 1,
2014
September
2015
Agricultural Science & Technology Education 3 3
Alternative Programs 55 64
Dropout Diversion/Credit Recovery 5 10
Other 5 5
Part-time Magnet 5 5
Pre-Kindergarten 38 43
Special Education 137 162
Technical Satellite 3 3
Transition 23 27
Grand Total : 274 323
PLUS: Alternative Schools 7 7
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PSIS – Reporting FC1 versus FC2 1) Enrolled in any kind of program for the entire day;
report the program’s Code as Facility Code 1 in PSIS. 2) When students have split schedules that place them
at two locations within the school day, there are two questions that should be considered when determining which location should be reported as Facility Code 1 and which as Facility Code 2 in PSIS.
a) First, if the majority of time is spent at one location, that location should be reported as Facility Code 1.
b) If the student’s time is split fairly evenly across the two locations, consider the location where the student receives the majority of their core academic instruction and report that location as Facility Code 1.
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Segregated Special Ed Classes vs. District-wide Special Ed Programs
Segregated special education classrooms only serve students from that “community” school whereas districtwide special education programs are designed to serve students from multiple sending district buildings.
A district with 3 elementary schools , each building has students with significant behavior issues that require a segregated classroom with a full-time ED teacher. Districts may create one ED classroom in each elementary school or may choose to consolidate those three smaller classes into one districtwide ED program within one elementary school.
• Separate class at each building - does not need a separate code.
• Consolidation of classes into a single program that accepts placements from all three buildings – requires a separate code.
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TCS & Outplaced Students Report all students registered in the Public School Information System (PSIS) PK through age 21 and who earned a final outcome/grade.
The LEA is ultimately responsible for the education of all outplaced students. It is the responsibility of the LEA to collaborate with the outplaced facility at the PPT and anytime thereafter in order to provide timely and accurate TCS data.
This includes students attending:
• Approved Private Special Education Programs (APSEP)
• Community Pre-K
• Generic in-state, out-of-state, and Prekindergarten Program
• Municipal detention centers
• “other non-public” facilities
• Out-of-state schools
• Residential facilities
• Transition/Vocational Service Provider (TVSP)
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Legislative Notes from Data
1) 15-133: Alternative Education
– Requires PPR, defines space, non-traditional setting, and requires full compliance with all education statutes including hours and days/year.
2) 15-5: Special Education Programs & Services
– Requires provision of “complete and accurate information on all special ed programs and services offered by SEA, LEAs, Regionals, RESCs, and all other providers”
3) Federal: Significant Disproportionality Calculation
Profile and Performance Report (PPR)
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Profile and Performance Report (PPR)
Afternoon PPR Session specific to Special Education
with John Watson & Stephanie O’Day.
We need your input!!!
State Law now Requires a PPR for all
PROGRAMS!
Reminder: SEDAC Desk Audit
Special Ed Monitoring Cohorts
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Andover Hartford Wallingford
Barkhamsted Litchfield West Hartford
Bethel Marlborough West Haven
Bolton Montville Wethersfield
Bozrah New Canaan RSD #7
Colebrook Norwich RSD #8
Cromwell Plainfield RSD #13
Eastford Rocky Hill RSD #14
East Haddam Simsbury RSD #16
East Lyme Southington RSD #17
East Windsor Sterling RSD #18
Glastonbury Thomaston USD#2 - DCF
Congratulations: Excellent 2014-15 Audit
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SEDAC Audit/BSE File Review Winter 2016 (Oct. 15 data); Parent Survey Summer
2016; Focused Monitoring Summer/Fall 2016; (2019; 2022; 2025)
Ansonia Avon Berlin Bethany Bloomfield Canterbury Cheshire
Chester Clinton Columbia Danbury Darien Deep River East Granby
East Haven Essex Fairfield Franklin Greenwich Groton Guilford
Lebanon Lisbon Middletown Milford New Haven Newington New
Milford
North
Branford Norwalk
Old
Saybrook Orange Pomfret Portland Ridgefield
Seymour Somers Stafford Stonington Tolland Torrington Union
Waterbury Windham Wolcott Woodbridge Woodstock Regional SD
#4
Regional SD
#5
Regional SD
#10
Regional SD
#12
Cohort B
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Part B
State Performance Plan
Annual Performance Report
Back to School Presentation September 16, 2015
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SPP / APR Indicator 1: Graduation Indicator 2: Dropout Indicator 3: Participation and Performance on Statewide Assessments Indicator 4: Suspension and Expulsion (B) Indicator 5: Regular Class Placement (LRE) Indicator 6: Preschool Settings (LRE) Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation in Special Education and Related Services due to inappropriate identification Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories due to inappropriate identification Indicator 11: Evaluation Timelines Indicator 12: IEPs Implemented at age 3 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition with IEP Goals Indicator 14: Postsecondary Outcomes Indicator 15: Resolution Session Agreements Indicator 16: Mediation Agreements Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Indicator 17
State Systemic Improvement Plan
(SSIP)
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Background
• Alignment with Results Driven Accountability;
• To improve results for children with disabilities by improving educational services, including special education and related services;
• Stakeholder input: parents, local educational agencies, State Advisory Panel.
Phase I Submitted April 1, 2015
DATA ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT
AND BUILD CAPACITY
STATE-IDENTIFIED MEASURABLE RESULT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES *
SELECTION OF COHERENT IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES
THEORY OF ACTION
Connecticut’s State Systemic Improvement
Plan (SSIP)
How the SSIP Stakeholder
Committee used Data to narrow to a Focus
Area for CT’s State Identified
Measureable Result (SIMR)
24
Starting Point
• State Identified Measureable Result (SIMR) Must be:
– aligned to Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator
– individual child-level result
– connected to other state-level initiatives
– Doable! • Narrow enough that the state has resources to support the plan.
• Large enough to move the statewide numbers & effect real change.
• Quick Review – “Why Reading Achievement?”
• Digging Deeper into Reading Achievement for Students with Disabilities (SWD)
25
SPP/APR Results Indicators 1 – Graduation 2 – Dropout 3 – Academic Achievement 4A – Rates of Suspension/Expulsion (OSEP has said “no” to this for SSIP; not “results”) 5 – LRE (OSEP has said “no” to this for SSIP; not “results”) 6 – Preschool Settings (OSEP has said “no” to this for SSIP; not “results”)
7 – Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) 8 – Parent Involvement (not a child-level result)
14 – Post-School Outcomes 15 – Resolution Session Agreements (not a child-level result) 16 – Mediation Session Agreements (not a child-level result) 17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan (not a child-level result)
SPP/APR Compliance Indicators 4B – Rates of Suspension/Expulsion (by race) 9 – Disproportionality (Special Ed.) 10 – Disproportionality (Disability Category) 11 – Evaluation Timelines 12 – FAPE at 3 13 – Secondary Transition
Review of All APR Indicators
26
Initial Narrowing
• Only 5 APR Indicators are individual child-level results
– Indicator 1: Graduation
– Indicator 2: Dropout
– Indicator 3: Academic Achievement
– Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes
– Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes
27
Further Narrowing
• Considerations surrounding the possibilities: – Indicator 7: Early Childhood Outcomes
• Small n-sizes
• Issues with standard administration/scoring
• Change in assessment instrument for 2015-16
• Uncertain of future of this indicator
– Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes • Currently collected through survey
• Possibility for richer data using merge with National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) and Department of Labor (DOL), but not for two or more years
28
Three Viable Options
Graduation Dropout Academic
Achievement
Early Childhood Outcomes
Post School Outcomes
Graduation Dropout Academic
Achievement
29
Option 1: Graduation Takeaways
• Overall Students with Disabilities (SWD) Rate – Slight increases during 3 of the 4 previous years – Ranged from 62.4 – 64.7% over past 4 years
• Gap Between All Student and SWD Rate – Slowly, but consistently increasing – Ranged from 19.3 – 20.8% over past 4 years
• Comparison to U.S. and Other States – CT rates are higher than the national average for both All Students and
SWDs – CT All Student and SWD rate gap is larger than national gap and all but
one NERRC state
• Potential to Use 5-Year or 6-Year Rate – 5-year rate shows significant increases for SWDs – 6-year rate is included in draft ESEA accountability renewal application
30
Option 2: Dropout Takeaways
• Overall SWD Rate – Fairly stable from 2010-2012 with a decrease of almost 1
percent in 2013
– Ranged from 14.8 – 15.4% over past 4 years
• Gap Between SWD and All Student Rates – Consistently widening
– Ranged from 3.7 – 6.0% over past 4 years
• Comparison to Other States – Of neighboring states, CT has the lowest
4-year SWD dropout rate
31
Option 3: Achievement
Takeaways
• Reading is lowest performing subject for SWD.
32
Academic Achievement Reading CMT Performance Index
75.7 76.3 78.0 77.1
44.6 45.3 47.5 46.1
2010 2011 2012 2013
READ
SWD
33
Academic Achievement Reading CMT Gap
34
31.1 31.0 30.5
31.0
2010 2011 2012 2013
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
2010 2011 2012 2013
All Students
Black
ELL
FRLunch
Hispanic
HighNeeds
SWD
Academic Achievement Reading CMT Subgroup Performance
35
Reading Performance Index by Major Disability Category
36
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2011 2012 2013
LD
ID
ED
SLI
Other
OHI
AU
All SWD
Reading Performance Index by Major Disability Category
37
2011 PI 2012 PI 2013 PI 2011 N 2012 N 2013 N 2013%
LD 45.3 47.7 46.3 12502 12817 13107 40.7%
ID 17.1 17.8 17.4 994 958 924 2.9%
ED 38.3 42.1 42.9 1983 2002 1980 6.1%
SLI 43.8 47.2 45.9 5101 4827 4409 13.7%
Other 26.4 27.1 26.0 1652 1645 1661 5.2%
OHI 48.7 50.2 48.5 6118 6492 6699 20.8%
AU 41.8 44.7 44.0 3004 3298 3452 10.7%
All SWD 45.3 47.5 46.1 31354 32039 32232
2013 Reading Performance Index by Major Disability Category
38
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
LD ID ED SLI Other OHI AU
ALL SWD
Alliance
Reform
DRG A
DRG B
DRG C
DRG D
DRG E
DRG F
DRG G
DRG H
DRG I
NA
Charters
Academic Achievement Reading CMT Performance Index
39
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
2011 2012 2013
All
SWD
AllianceAll
AllianceSWD
2013 Reading Performance Index by Major Disability Category
40
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
LD ID ED SLI Other OHI AU
ALL SWD
Alliance
Reform
DRG A
DRG B
2013 Reading Performance Index by Race Category
41
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Hispanic Black White
All CT
ALL SWD
DRG A
DRG B
Alliance
Reform
2013 Reading Performance Index by 3 TWNDP Categories
42
50.8
37.2
33.8
75.1
66.4
32.2
24.5 22.6
46.8
40.5
17.7 15.5
12.2
22.2 23.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
All SWD Alliance Reform DRG A DRG B
80-100%
40-79%
0-39%
2013 Reading Performance Index by Grade Level
43
33.7
43.0 43.5 40.9
51.2 51.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
3 4 5 6 7 8
All SWD
Alliance
Reform
DRG A
DRG B
2012 - 2013 Suspension By Enrollment Data
44
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
All Other Districts Reform Districts
Enrollment
Zero
Less than 10
Ten or more
Interpretation: Ed Reform Districts represent only 26% of the CT SWD enrollment, but are responsible for 65% of all SWD suspended/expelled for 10+ days.
2013 Discipline Incidents by Race and District Group
45
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
All Other DistrictsSWD
All Other Districts:Yes Discipline
Reform DistrictsSWD
Reform Districts:Yes Discipline
Hispanic
Black
White
2013 Reading Performance Index by Discipline Days Sanctioned
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ALL SWD Alliance Reform A B
None
Less than10 days
Ten ormore days
2013 Chronic Absenteeism
47
7.6%
92.4%
General Education Students
Chronic
Not Chronic
14.9%
85.1%
Students with Disabilities
Chronic
Not Chronic
2013 Reading Performance Index by Chronic Absenteeism
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SWD Alliance Reform A B
Not Chronic
ChronicallyAbsent
Discussion with Stakeholders Narrowing the Focus of the SIMR
• Disability Category (All SWD or choose a subgroup?)
– Stakeholder group – in CT n-sizes are small within disability type. – Additionally not equitable to focus on one disability
• Focus Statewide, on Alliance or Ed Reform Districts? – Consider a group of districts who are not in alliance; look at
underperforming districts in the middle (not by drg – by lea). Select a subgroup that is targetable and ramp up opportunities and PD from academics and SERC.
– SPDG schools (77) – look at a scale up opportunity within those districts.
• Ind. 3 looks at all Grade Levels combined. – Should the SIMR focus on 3rd grade, 4th grade or 6th grade Reading
Assessments? – Grade levels are approximately 5000 SWD each
• Do TWNDP, Discipline or Chronic Absenteeism data add a new aspect to the achievement story for SWD or reinforce other conclusions? – TWNDP and Discipline are meaningful to the theory of action at the LEA level,
not statewide.
49
Stakeholder Recommendations
DECISION MADE!!!
Increase the performance of all Students with Disabilities
on Grade 3: Reading Assessments – Statewide.
50
District Selection Process
51
For 2015-16 we will use the 2014 SBAC Data. • Does NOT include CTAA/NCSC data • Using % at or above Proficient (1-year only)
• Will transition to SPI/DPI data in 2016-17
Selection Variables considered: • % Proficient or above - All Students • % Proficient or above - SWD • GAP between performance of All Students and SWD • “n” size for SWD on SBAC assessment
• For year one: n > 9 • Other data considered:
• Ind. 5 (LRE data – meeting APR targets) • Disproportionality (Disability/Placement by Race)
Connecticut’s STATE IDENTIFIED MEASURABLE RESULT FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (SIMR):
Increase the reading performance of all 3rd grade students with disabilities
statewide, as measured by Connecticut’s approved ESEA Flexibility Performance
Index
Submission of Electronic Data
Wall
Approx. 15 LEAs identified for
Phase Three
On-Site
Self-Assessment
Data/Root Cause Analysis
Examination of District
Infrastructure
Development of Theory of
Action and
Implementation Plan
BSE IDEA Compliance Review
Review of approximately 4 key data sets
per district
Approximately 25 LEAs identified for
Phase Two
Phase One -
Approx. 60 LEAs
on a 3-yr Cycle.
Phase Two - LEAs with
Data of Concern
Phase Three – Selected Districts
(LEAs Most in Need of
Improvement)
Focused Monitoring System Phases
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
Tier 3
Cohort A-3 Approx.
15 districts (↓) Intensive Intervention
Cohort B-3 Approx.
15 districts (↓) Intensive Intervention
+ Cohort A-3
Cohort C-3 Approx.
15 districts (↓) Intensive Intervention
+ Cohort A-3 & B-3
Tier 2
Cohort A-2 Approx.
25 districts(↓) Targeted
Intervention/Support
Cohort B-2 Approx.
25 districts (↓) Targeted
Intervention/Support + Cohort A-2
Cohort C-2 Approx.
25 districts(↓) Targeted
Intervention/Support + Cohorts A-2 & B-2
Tier 1
Cohort A-1 56 districts
Universal Supports
(resources/supports available to all >)
Cohort B-1 51 districts
Universal Supports
>
Cohort C-1 63 districts
Universal Supports
>
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Tier 3 (Intensive)
- Data, Infrastructure, & Root Cause Analysis - REQUIRED development of Theory of Action - Focused TA / Professional Learning Activities - Periodic Progress Monitoring - + Supports/Resources of Tiers 1 & 2
Tier 2 ( Targeted)
- Development of Data Wall (in response to: 3rd Grade Reading data) - Potential requirement of utilizing FM protocol to develop Theory of Action, subject to SDE review - + supports of Tier 1
Tier 1 (Universal)
- Best Practices Guidance - Availability of Professional Learning Modules - Provision of Focused Monitoring Protocol (for use as optional district self-study / Theory of Action development)
SSIP Tiers of Intervention
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Phase II Submission date: April 1, 2016
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
SUPPORT FOR LEA IMPLEMENTATION OF EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES
EVALUATION
Phase III
Submission date: April 1, 2017
IMPLEMENTATION
AND
EVALUATION
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Contact:
Jim Moriarty, Education Consultant
Bureau of Special Education
860-713-6946 [email protected]
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION