CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONfiles.serc.co/bts15/am/CSDE Presentations/Back to...

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Special Education Data Updates

Diane Murphy

Performance Office

September 16, 2015

SEDAC Data Cleaning Reports


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.


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.”


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.


New Data Cleaning Reports


Annual Reviews DUE:


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!


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


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.


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.


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)


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)


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


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


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


Part B

State Performance Plan

Annual Performance Report

Back to School Presentation September 16, 2015


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)


Indicator 17

State Systemic Improvement Plan

(SSIP)


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


2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Tier 3

Cohort A-3 Approx.

15 districts (↓) Intensive Intervention

Cohort B-3 Approx.


+ Cohort A-3

Cohort C-3 Approx.


+ 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

>


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



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


Contact:

Jim Moriarty, Education Consultant

Bureau of Special Education

860-713-6946 [email protected]


Date post:	02-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONfiles.serc.co/bts15/am/CSDE Presentations/Back to...

Documents