1. Students with Disabilities Outcomes and Improvement Strategies Patricia J. Geary Coordinator, Special Education Policy and Professional Development Higher Education Task Force Meeting October 2007

2. We’re making progress…. Achievement is up in Grades 3-8 in English Language Arts and Mathematics Few students are educated in separate settings More take and pass Regents exams every year More graduate every year More earn Regents diplomas More attend college than a decade ago

3. But Achievement and Graduation Rates Remain Far Too Low Black students are disproportionately classified. Too few students with disabilities are in general education settings in the Big Five Cities. Achievement in Grades 3-8 is a fraction of what it should be. Successful outcomes (graduation) are too low. Too many students are dropping out of school.

4. Final: June 2007 Much larger percentages of students with disabilities are provided special education services in separate classes and in separate settings in the Big Five Cities, compared to rest of State. Keynote by R. Cort, 10/3/07

5. The percentage of students with disabilities in serious academic difficulties decreased in every category. Gap: Students in Large City Districts were 4 times as likely as those in Low Need Districts to score at Level 1. 2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1 Keynote by R. Cort, 10/3/07

6. 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. Regents English Examination and Students with Disabilities Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final April 2007 Keynote by R. Cort, 10/3/07

7. Student GroupCohort Enrollment Regents/ Local Diploma IEP Diploma & Other Still Enrolled Transfer to GED Dropout 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years All Students214,49464.2%1.8%18.4%4.8%10.9% Gen.Ed. Students 187,79268.0%0.0%17.7%4.5%9.7% Students with Disabilities 26,70237.3%14.4%22.8%6.6%18.9% 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years All Students212,13572.3%2.4%5.1%1.4%18.9% Gen. Ed. Students 185,85476.4%0.1%4.7%1.2%17.5% Students with Disabilities 26,28142.8%18.8%7.3%2.4%28.6% 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years All Students216,91066.7%2.0%15.8%1.4%14.2% Gen. Ed. Students 189,45770.9%0.1%14.7%1.3%13.0% Students with Disabilities 27,45337.5%14.8%23.1%2.6%21.9% High School Outcomes for 2001 and 2002 Total Cohorts Final: June 2007 Keynote by R. Cort, 10/3/07

8. Measuring what matters… The State Performance Plan 1.Graduation 2.Drop Out 3.State Assessments 4.Suspension 5.LRE – PS 6.LRE – School age 7.PS Outcomes 8.Parental involvement 9.Disproportionality – identification 10.Disproportionality – classification and placement 11.Timely evaluations 12.Services by 3 rd birthday 13.Transition IEPs 14.Post school outcomes

9. State and District Results State’s Annual Performance Report Special Education School District Data Profile http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/ home.html http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/ home.html

10. Strategies for Improving Student Performance in the P-16 Initiative Keynote by R. Cort, 10/3/07

11. VESID Key Actions for 2007-08 Annual targets for improvement Identification of districts in need of assistance and in need of intervention Direct TA resources to IDEA-identified districts Contracts for Excellence prioritize students in greatest need, including students with disabilities Focus TA on improving core instructional practices Identify successful schools Establish statewide Response to Intervention (RtI) Technical Assistance Center (TAC) Provide grants to districts to implement RtI programs Explore the development of Career and Technology Education (CTE) program options for students with disabilities to decrease dropout rates

12. Quality Indicator Assessment and Resource Guides Literacy Early literacy Middle level High school Specially Designed Intensive Systemic Supports Behavioral supports and interventions School-wide positive behavioral supports Classroom management Small group intensive Intensive, individualized interventions Delivery of special education services Instructional environment and practice CSE process IEP development

13. III Indicator 1: School Infrastructure Question: Does the school have a consistent effective school-wide discipline system, with sufficient allocation of resources that includes a clear, efficient system for addressing the needs of students with severe or chronic behavioral problems? Component 1a: School-wide Support Quality IndicatorsLook ForsComments  There is a school-wide system for addressing discipline that includes: o increasingly intensive interventions; o on-going assessment to determine student need for intervention; and o use of a data-drive problem-solving process.  Principal provides oversight of system, including process for implementing individualized interventions, to ensure it is being delivered as designed Meeting rosters, memos  The principal is an active participant in planning and implementing intensive individualized interventions Records of classroom visits  Adequate resources and programmatic flexibility are provided to implement individualized interventions with fidelity Budgets, schedules, job descriptions  Access to school-based intensive interventions is rapid and efficient BOE minutes, newsletters/website

14. Indicator 4: Developing intensive individualized interventions: FBA Question: Do teams identify problem behavior(s) in concrete, measurable terms, and determine why the student engages in problem behaviors that impede learning and how the environment is related to the behavior(s)? Component 4C: Baseline is established Quality IndicatorsLook ForsComments  Baseline measures were taken to determine occurrence/non-occurrence of problem behavior across: o activities o settings o people o times of day Copies of data collection tools/summary of data  Baseline measures include frequency, duration, intensity and/or latency (how long it takes a student to respond) Copies of data collection tools/summary of data  Behavioral needs are documented in Present Levels of Performance in the IEP IEP Component 1D: Contextual Factors: Factors Influencing Behavior  Factors that increase the likelihood of the behavior are identified (such as problems at home, on the bus, classroom activities, tasks). FBA  Relationships between antecedents (people, events, activities that occur before the problem behavior) and the problem behavior are identified FBA  Sequences of student behavior that consistently precede target behavior are identified FBA

15. Important Policy and Monitoring Changes to Improve Results High standards for behavioral assessments and interventions Response-to-Intervention Programs – LD, Screening, Contracts for Excellence Regulations New criteria for determining students with learning disabilities Continuum of service options to meet individuals student needs Educational benefit reviews

16. Behavioral Assessments and Interventions 8 NYCRR Section 200.22  Functional behavioral assessments  Behavioral intervention plans  Use of Time Out Rooms  Emergency Interventions

17. The FBA must include, but is not limited to: identification of the problem behavior; definition of the behavior in concrete terms; identification of the contextual factors that contribute to the behavior (including cognitive and affective factors); and formulation of a hypothesis regarding the general conditions under which a behavior usually occurs and probable consequences that serve to maintain it.

18. Functional Behavioral Assessment (con’t.) The FBA:  Must be based on multiple sources of data  Cannot be based solely on student’s history of presenting problem behaviors  Must provide a baseline of student’s problem behaviors  Include sufficient detail to form the basis for a behavioral intervention plan (BIP)

19. Behavioral Intervention Plans: When? CSE/CPSE must consider development of a BIP: 1. When student exhibits persistent behaviors that impede his/her learning or that of others; 2. When student’s behavior places the student or others at risk; 3. When CSE/CPSE is considering more restrictive programs or placements as a result of student’s behavior; and/or 4. As required by section 201.3 (Discipline – manifestation determination).

20. Behavioral Intervention Plans BIP must identify:  Baseline measure of problem behavior, including frequency, duration, intensity and or latency of targeted behaviors  Intervention strategies for targeted inappropriate behavior  Schedule to measure effectiveness of the interventions

21. Progress Monitoring Implementation of BIP must include progress monitoring of frequency, duration and intensity of behavior  Done at scheduled intervals as specified in the BIP and on student’s IEP  Results reported to student’s parents and to CSE/CPSE  Considered in determination to revise a student’s BIP or IEP

22. Learning Disabilities Response to Intervention Programs State criteria for LD determinations

23. RtI Programs §100.2(ii) Minimum requirements  Appropriate instruction in general education class Appropriate instruction in reading means scientific research-based reading programs that include instruction in:  Phonemic awareness  Phonics  Vocabulary development  Reading fluency and  Reading comprehension strategies  Screenings  Levels of targeted intervention

24.  Repeated assessments  Application of information to make educational decisions  Written notification to parents Student performance data collected and general education services to be provided Strategies for increasing rate of learning Parents’ right to request an evaluation

25.  School selects structure and components Criteria for determining levels of intervention Types of interventions Amount and nature of performance data to be collected Manner and frequency for progress monitoring  Ensure fidelity of implementation Staff knowledge and skills to implement RtI Program is implemented consistent with the RtI structure and components selected

26. Referrals when using RtI School district must initiate a referral and promptly request parent consent to evaluate a student who:  has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction in a “response-to-intervention” process (§100.2(ii))

27. Learning Disabilities (LD) § 200.4(j) May not rely on any single procedure Must include observation of student’s academic performance in the regular classroom  Before referral  With parent consent, after the referral  Must be conducted by CSE member Q: If you use an RtI process, must you still conduct a complete individual evaluation? A: Yes

28. Are learning problems the result of lack of appropriate instruction in math and reading? Data that demonstrates that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the student was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction  Information must have been provided to parents prior to referral

29. Who makes the LD determination? CSE  Must include student’s regular education teacher; and  At least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations (e.g., school psychologist, speech/language pathologist, reading teacher)

30. State Criteria for LD 1. Student does not achieve adequately for age or standards; and 2. Student either:  does not make progress (RtI) or  exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in: performance, achievement, or both relative to age, standards or intellectual development; and

31. 3. Not result of:  visual, hearing or motor disability;  mental retardation;  emotional disturbance;  cultural factors;  environmental or economic disadvantage; or  limited English proficiency

32. Use of significant discrepancy State does not prohibit its use Except that effective on or after July 1, 2012 (5 years), a school district shall not use the severe discrepancy criteria for:  LD determination in reading for students in grades K-4.

33. Written report of LD Determination 1. Does student have a LD? 2. Basis for making the determination? 3. Relevant behavior noted during the observation and the relationship of the behavior to the student’s academic functioning 4. Educationally relevant medical findings 5. Does the student meet the State’s criteria?

34. 6. Determination of the CSE regarding exclusionary factors 7. If student participated in RtI:  Instructional strategies used and the student centered data collected; and  Documentation that parents were notified amount and nature of student performance data, general education strategies used for increasing the student’s rate of learning; and right to request a special education evaluation.

35. Proposals to Advance RtI Implementation RtI Technical Assistance Center (RtI-TAC)  Connect to new federally-funded National RtI Center Grants to schools to implement RtI  Selected schools throughout NYS

36. Continuum of Services

37. What are the Minimum Levels of Service for Consultant Teacher (CT) and Resource Room (RR)? Combined CT & RR  Must meet minimum level of service-at least 3 hours per week.  Must be listed separately on the IEP and include frequency, duration and location RR alone must be a minimum of 3 hours weekly CT alone must be a minimum of 2 hours weekly CT definition clarified – direct CT means services provided to the student in the general education class

38. What are the Requirements for Integrated Co-Teaching Services? District may add to continuum, but not required Class composition  Must include students with disabilities and general education peers  No more than 12 students with disabilities in the class (effective 7/1/08)

39. Who Can Provide Integrated Co-Teaching Services? General education teacher ( teacher of record ); and Special education teacher  Teacher aides/teaching assistants can not be used in place of the special education teacher

40. Who Can Provide Integrated Co-Teaching Services? General education teacher ( teacher of record ); and Special education teacher  Teacher aides/teaching assistants can not be used in place of the special education teacher

41. Educational Benefit

42. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)  Intent is to design individualized instruction  With sufficient supports and services to  Enable student to receive educational benefit

43. Rowley Standard U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) defined two-pronged test  Used to determine if IEP appropriately developed Does IEP meet procedural compliance? Was IEP reasonably calculated to enable child to receive educational benefit?

44. Reasonable Calculation  Based on procedural requirements of IDEA 2004  IEP identifies needs related to: Child’s disability Involvement & progress in general curriculum  Annual Goals established in each need area  Services planned to support: Progress toward all goals Progress in general curriculum Participation in extracurricular & other nonacademic activities Education with disabled & nondisabled children  Child’s IEP adjusted if progress not made and/or to address anticipated needs

45. Educational Benefit  Can be measured in a variety of ways Achieving passing marks Advancing from grade to grade Making progress toward meeting annual goals Improving scores on statewide/district wide assessments & alternate assessment measures Graduating with a regular diploma Passing High School exit exams such as Regents and RCT

46. Educational Benefit Activity  Determine whether design of IEP is reasonably calculated for student to receive educational benefit

47. Components  Reviewing IEP documentation and annual goals progress for a 3-year cycle  Analyzing the relationship among needs, annual goals, and services  Comparing progress across consecutive IEPs  Looking for patterns in IEP development process  Determining if IEP was reasonably calculated to result in educational benefit