one school system’s journey (so far) leadership for equity and excellence forum equity alliance at...
TRANSCRIPT
One School System’s Journey (so far)
Leadership for Equity and Excellence Forum Equity Alliance at ASUFebruary 28, 2011
Objectives • Describe the history and framework of AACPS’
approach to the issue of Disproportionality
• Provide an effective protocol and systematic problem solving process that can be applied systemically or in individual schools to remediate Disproportionality
• Share results and discuss factors that have been found to contribute to Disproportionality in our district
• Share resources and effective strategies for addressing Disproportionality in schools
The AACPS Approach History & Framework
Anne Arundel County Public SchoolsAnnapolis, MD
History• Recognized as Disproportionate by
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)– Areas of Concern
Identification – in categories of Specific Learning Disability (SLD), Emotional Disturbance (ED), and Mental Retardation/Intellectually Disabled (MR/ID)
Placement Discipline
– 15% EIS budget allocation requirement
• Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Agreement– Establishment of Goals for the Improvement of Education and
Academic Attainment among African American Students• Issue of Parity
AACPS Disproportionality Workgroup
• Established Spring of 2007
• Multidisciplinary Team to Collaboratively Address Disproportionality Vertically and Horizontally
• Partner with the State (MSDE) for Discretionary Grant Funding and Re-examine Definition of Disproportionality
• Develop, Implement, and Monitor District Level Action Plan
District Level Action Plan Critical Components
• Incorporation of a Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) process – RtI framework for prevention and early intervention
• Review and enhanced utilization of system/school-based accountability tools: Audits/Internal Monitoring Screening Tools Special Ed Process and Forms Transfer activities
• Cultural Proficiency/Stakeholder Communication
• Data Analysis & Exploration of Evidence-Based Practices for Assessment and Intervention
• Provision of Equity in Resource Allocation for Intervention
• Outreach to Parents & Community
• System-wide implementation of a TEAM Teaching model
• Value of Professional Development
• Expansion of Alternative Education Options
• Identification of and Outreach to Targeted Schools
District Level Action Plan Critical Components
MSDE Disproportionality Grant• Hiring of a Disproportionality Project Facilitator
• Targeted outreach to schools using the risk ratio (>2.0)– 2007-08: 13 Target Schools – 2008-09: 15 Target Schools (7 new & 8 returning) – 2009-10: 15 Target Schools (6 new & 9 returning) – 2010-11: 17 Target Schools (3 new & 14 returning/ recognizing 4 schools are between 2.00-2.04)
• Provision of Materials of Instruction (MOI) & Stipend mini-grants to address inequity of resource allocation and support plan implementation
• Annual Disproportionality Conference with national speakers
• School Specific Training focus on Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) & Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (PBIS)
Targeted School Outreach
Remediating Disproportionality one school … one student at a time
The Protocol
• Initial meeting with school teams – introduce the required self-assessment tool
• Follow-up meeting with school teams to review the self-assessment results & begin action planning through the CDM process
• Finalize and review the school-based action plan
• Implement the action plan with technical assistance and on-going progress monitoring by the Facilitator/CDM Consultant
Self-Assessment• Focuses school attention on current policies/procedures
and instructional practices
• Encourages raising teacher awareness of cultural issues, at the school level and within the community, as a means of addressing disproportionate numbers
• Incorporates:– School Data– An Intervention Summary– Program Effectiveness Analysis– Program Summary
• What’s Working?• What Requires ACTION?
Problem Identification & Analysis
SUCCESSIntervention EvaluationLimitedSuccess
Intervention Design & Implementation
Intervention Evaluation
Intervention Design & Implementation
Problem Identification& Analysis
• Problem Areas Documented• Baseline Data is Recorded• Short- and Long-term Goals are Set• Strengths and Resources
are Highlighted• Obstacles are Prioritized & Targeted• Evidence-based Intervention
Strategies are Identified
Intervention Evaluation
Intervention Design & Implementation
Problem Identification& Analysis
• Specific plan of action is developed
• Accountability measures are incorporated to ensure fidelity
• Progress monitoring
Intervention Evaluation
Intervention Design & Implementation
Problem Identification& Analysis
• Data is utilized to assess progress• Next steps are determined
Why use CDM to address System Level Change?
• Assists teams in determining the “Root Cause” of a concern while providing a framework for problem solving
• Involves multiple disciplines & resources in a Professional Learning Community (PLC) to address district, cluster, and school goals
• Uses data and progress monitoring to guide instructional practices
• Demonstrates alignment with School Improvement Plan efforts
• Provides accountability
The Results Finding the Big Ideas and their Impact
4 Original “Big Ideas” in AACPS Disproportionality
IdentificationIdentificationResources/ Resources/
InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Big Idea #1: Identification• Need for uniformity & accuracy
• Compassionate coding – Attitude that “more is better” when helping kids
• Need for auditing/ accountability in initial identifications (self-audits with checklist or external audits)
• What is normal? Disability defined as relative to population in school – Implementation of the WIN Project – spring 2010
• Enhanced focus on target schools making initial determination
• Guidelines for re-evaluation determination process
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Big Idea #2: Resources/Intervention
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Equity of resource allocation
Title I vs. AAA vs. Nothing
Need for expansion of CDM & PBIS
Need for approved interventions for Math & Written Language
Need for support with red zone behaviors
Exploration of cluster-based licensure and targeting for interventions
Culturally proficient mental health services
Big Idea #3: Professional Development
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Cultural Proficiency & Truth in Labeling
CDM & PBIS
Culturally Responsive Assessments
Differentiated Instruction
Interventions
Cultural Differences in Language and Behavior Management (Is the behavior disturbed or disturbing?)
Big Idea #4: Community Partnerships
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Mentoring opportunities
Business sponsorships
Outreach programs to specific communities
Involvement of faith-based groups
Parent education/PR on alternatives to special education
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Big Idea #5: Disproportionality Awareness(recognized in Spring 2009)
Disproportionality Disproportionality
AwarenessAwareness
Ongoing Progress Monitoring
Continued Self-Exploration through School Improvement process
Non-linear, multi-layered problem solving
Courageous Conversations – “Putting the ugly on the table”
Keeping the issue current & relevant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ES 1 ES 2 ES 3 ES 4 ES 5 ES 6 ES 7 ES 8 ES 9 MS 10 MS 11 HS 12 HS 13
2006
2007
Disproportionality Weighted Risk Ratios for Target Schools in 2007-08
*Average change in target schools from 2006 to 2007was -0.88
Disproportionality Weighted Risk Ratios in New Target Schools for 2008-09
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
ES 14 ES 15 ES 16 MS 17 MS 18 MS 19 HS 20
2007
2008
*Average change in new target schools from 2007 to 2008 was -0.47
Disproportionality Weighted Risk Ratios in Returning Target Schools for 2008-09
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ES 1 ES 3 ES 5 ES 6 MS 10 MS 11 HS 12 HS 13
2006
2007
2008
*Average change in returning target schools from 2006 to 2008 was -1.24
In the Spring of 2009, AACPS was recognized as no longer Significantly Disproportionate for Special Education Identification by MSDE . The journey continues!
The Journey MUST Continue!
*Average 1-Year change for all schools is -20% from baseline
2-Year change is -24% from baseline3-Year change is -10% (impacted by decreasing Special Ed enrollment
numbers)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2007-08 New Schools 2008-09 New Schools 2009-10 New Schools
Baseline
After 1 Year
After 2 Years
After 3 Years
Identified Resources Recognized on the JourneySharing Strategies and Research
Resource Guide
• Summarizes key components of AACPS process
• Includes effective strategies identified in action plans
• Incorporates a Companion CD with links to important documents, research, and websites
• Online version available at http://www.aacps.org/ocr/cdrom.pdf
Questions?
Mary Tillar – [email protected] Levine – [email protected] Kristen Mayle – [email protected]