1. 2011 BIE SPECIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 Strengthening Partnerships Between Special and General Education for Positive Student Outcomes TAMPA, FLORIDA

2. Moving from a Culture of Compliance to a Culture of Accountability for Results Presented by: Gloria J. Yepa Supervisory Education Specialist Division of Performance and Accountability Bureau of Indian Education

3. How did we do? Based on data submitted OSEP, determined that the BIE needs assistance in implementing the requirements of Part B of IDEA.

4. BIE Annual Performance Report Report on BIE’s progress on the BIE State Performance Plan Indicators applicable to the BIE are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 Submitted 2/1/2011 to Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Based on 2009-2010 data

5. Enforcement Action: BIE must report with its FFY 2010 APR submission due 2/1/2012, on: The technical assistance sources from which the BIE received assistance; and The actions the BIE took as a result of that technical assistance The BIE must notify the public within the BIE that the Secretary of Education has taken the above enforcement action.

6. The enforcement action will be posted at the BIE Website, www.bie.edu and provided to the BIE Special Education Advisory Board www.bie.edu Also posted at the BIE Website are: 2011 State Performance Plan (revised 4/18/11) 2011 Annual Performance Report (revised 4/18/11) 2011 Indicators by School

7. Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma (results indicator). The BIE did not meet its 2009 target of reducing the gap in the graduation rate between students with disabilities and all students by.5% over the previous year. SWDAllGap FFY 200952.44%57.73%5.29% FFY 200847.08%52.45%5.37%

8. Indicator 2: Percent of Youth with IEPs dropping out of high school (results indicator). The BIE did meet its target that the drop-out rate of students with disabilities attending BIE operated high schools will not exceed 9.3%. FFY 2008T #s /T DOs FFY 2009T #s/T DosG or S SWD9.87%1,863/1848.12%1,810/147Gain All8.0812,224/9889.68%13,460/1303Slippage

9. Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments (results indicator): 3A: Percent of schools with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup. The BIE did not meet its target of the schools with sufficient “n” for calculation, 8 more schools than baseline (3 schools) will achieve AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup Number of Schools Total # meeting the “n” size Total # meeting “n” size & met AYP Percent FFY 20091732229%

10. 3B: Participation rate for children with IEPs 3B: Participation rate for children with IEPs. The BIE did meet its target of 96% participation rate for both Reading/LA and Math. R/LAG - 3G - 4G - 5G- 6G - 7G - 8HSTotal T Asst.5985315185835265044393699 % Asst. 97.799.097.398.697.598.692.297.4 Math T Asst.5985295195835245034383694 % Asst. 97.598.697.598.497.298.489.796.9

11. 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards. The BIE did not meet its target in Reading/LA by reducing the gap by 20% (gap = 4.47%), results showed the gap increased by 0.25%; and the BIE did meet its target in Math by reducing the gap by 20% (gap = 3.51%), results showed the gap decreased by 3.68 %. R/LAFFY2008FFY2009MathFFY2008FFY2009 All37.55%39.45%33.26%30.48% SWD15.17%16.82%15.71%16/61% Gap22.38%22.63%17.55%13.87%

12. Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion: 4: Rates of Suspension and expulsion (results indicator): 4A: Percent of schools identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs for greater than 10 days in a school year. The BIE did not meet its target of no more than 4 of the BIE High Schools or 7 BIE elementary schools will report suspensions and expulsion rates greater than two times the BIE average for that group of schools. # of Schools with Significant Discrepancy for BIE Average Elementary Schools 8 High Schools10

13. Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served (results indicator): A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements

14. FFY 2008FFY 2009FFY 2009 Target % Inside regular class ≥ 80% 69.4871.1670.17Meets Target % Inside regular class ˂ 40% 7.41 7.32 7.37 Meets Target % Served in separate setting.81.98.45 Did Not Meet Target

15. Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities (results indicator). FFY 2009FFY 2009 Target Total Number of Parent Respondents 3,990 Number Reporting Schools Facilitated Their Involvement 1,507 Percentage Reporting Schools Facilitated Their Involvement 37.77%33.98%Meets Target

16. Indicator 11: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe (compliance indicator). Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. 376 Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days. 372 Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days. 98.93%The BIE did not meet the required 100% compliance.

17. Indicator 13: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority (compliance indicator).

18. Files Reviewed# 100% Compliance % Compliance 58534659.14%The BIE did not meet the required 100% compliance

19. Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were (results indicator): a. Enrolled in high education within one year of leaving high school. b. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. c. Enrolled in high education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leafing high school.

20. CategoryNumberPercent Enrolled in higher education 7925.2 Engaged in competitive employment 6821.7 Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training 8125.8 Not in any of the above three categories 8627.4 Total Number of Respondents 314100

21. CategoryNumber of Respondents Percent Number of Responders314100 Measurement A: Percent of youth enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school 7925.2% Measurement B: Measurement A + percent of youth competitively employed within one year of leaving high school 14746.8 Measurement C: Measurement B + percent of youth enrolled in any other type of postsecondary education/training or employed in any other type of employment 22872.6

22. Indicator 15: General supervision system identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification (compliance indicator). FFY 2009 Identified 2008-2009 Corrected Within One Year Number of Findings231 Findings Corrected Within One Year 134 Percent Corrected Within One Year 58.01The BIE did not meet the required 100% compliance

23. Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State (compliance indicator).

24. Indicator 17: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines (compliance indicator).

25. Indicator 18: Percent of hearing request that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements (compliance indicator). Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements (results indicator).

26. Indicator#WithdrawnResolved within the required timelines ComplianceResults 16: State Complaint Investigation 2100%The BIE did not meet the required 100% Compliance 17: Due Process Hearings 000N/A 18: Resolution Sessions 000N/A 19: Mediations10Pending at close of the FFY. N/A

27. Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate (compliance indicator). Calculation of the data for this indicator is 89.65%. The BIE did not meet the required 100% Compliance.

28. EMPHASIS OF ACCOUNTABILITY HAS SHIFTED… The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities shall be on- Improving education RESULTS and functional OUTCOMES for all children with disabilities Ensuring that States meet the program requirements, with emphasis on those most related to improving results

29. OSEP continues to be responsible for ensuring compliance with IDEA Compliance alone will not guarantee improved results for children with disabilities. The results-focused component will shift the balance between compliance and results and support the States’ efforts to identify resources and strategies that will lead to improved outcomes for children with disabilities.

30. Effort Focus attention on improving results in a key results topic in the State Support State efforts to gather and analyze data to make data-informed decisions Identify relevant OSEP-funded TA resources Support State in moving forward in a key results topic Effect Change in practice related to the results topic Data demonstrate improved results

31. Data Usage States are encouraged to utilize school-level and local Early Intervention program data to inform decisions about possible areas for Results work. Observe trends Comparing data across similar demographic or geographic areas Linking data to expected Results outcomes

32. DPA – Special Education Accessed technical assistance from Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center to make the shift to adding IMPROVING OUTCOMES for all children to our focus, including students with disabilities. DPA Managers agree to the importance of collaboration to close the achievement gap that exists between the “All” group and students with disabilities. Initiated the BIE: Dropout Prevention Initiative: “Graduation for All” Special Education Unit pledges to engage in a collaborative dialogue and to achieve a common understanding of our shared responsibilities for improving results for our youth with disabilities and their families.

33. Please welcome Gaye Leia King Supervisory Education Specialist Supplemental Education Division of Performance and Accountability Bureau of Indian Education

34. Positive Students Outcomes – A Shared Responsibility Reauthorization of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Opportunities of SPED and Title to work more closely to ensure improved learning for ALL students BIE unique in that all schools receive Title I funds for implementing Schoolwide Title Programs

35. Purpose of a School-wide Title I Program Upgrade the entire educational program in the school so that all students, particularly the lowest-achieving students, demonstrate proficiency relative to the “state’s” academic content and achievement standards IDEA-Special Educ. ESEA-School-wide Title I ISEP-General Education Program

36. BIE’s Statewide System of Support Developing a system of support that can trace every activity to its impact on a student in a classroom

37. BIE’s Statewide System of Support Collective responsibility for continuous improvement for all students Culture of participation in achieving continuous improvement Coherent delivery of services and access to services Culture and routine practice of effective use and analysis of data from multiple sources Comprehensive assessment plans by districts and schools

38. BIE’s Statewide System of Support Achievement: All students perform at proficient level Increased leadership of change Increased student and teacher engagement Academic performance for ALL students meets or exceeds the proficient or advanced levels Improved readiness for postsecondary success including aspects beyond academics-College readiness

39. Common Initiatives to Improve Learning for ALL Native Star Continuous School Improvement Tool Tri-annual Data Conversations using NWEA MAP and other sources of data Family Engagement Tool (FET)

40. Native Star CSI Tool Native Star is a web-based tool that guides a school team in charting its progress and managing the continuous improvement process Native Star is premised on the firm belief that school improvement is best accomplished when directed by the people closest to the students. BIE provides a framework for the process, each school team applies its own ingenuity to achieve the results it desires for its students-- students it knows and cares about. Native Star is a web based continuous improvement tool organized around indicators of effective practices at both the district and school level.

41. Native Star CSI Tool Leadership Team Instructional Team Family and Community Council (Team) Assessing level of implementation of the Effective Practices related to their areas Developing and implementing plan

42. Native Star CSI Tool The time saved by efficient generation and electronic submission of reports can be applied to the more meaningful work of teams doing what they know is best for their students. Working on the work is part of the work, not a distraction from it.

43. BIE’s Tri-Annual Data Conversations BIE’s Data Accountability System that provides an opportunity for structured, professional conversations focused specifically on student achievement to be held through-out the BIE system

44. BIE’s Tri-Annual Data Conversations Teachers will: - meet with individual students to discuss performance and set growth targets for learning - develop plans with the students to meet the growth targets

45. BIE’s Tri-Annual Data Conversations Principals will: - meet with teachers to discuss the student growth targets and plans to achieve them - aggregate the information received from teachers and will prepare school growth targets and plans for school-wide focus on achievement of student growth targets

46. BIE’s Tri-Annual Data Conversations Line Officers will: - meet with Principals to discuss and plan supports and resources needed by teachers and staff School Operations and the Division of Performance and Accountability (DPA) will: - meet to discuss and plan supports and resources needed within the Line Offices and Schools

47. Family Engagement Tool OPTIONAL Developed by the Academic Development Institute Center on Innovation & Improvement (CII) http://www.families-schools.org/

48. Family Engagement Tool The FET provides: A school team with a structured process to strengthen parent involvement through the continuous school improvement plan. Purposeful parent engagement that is linked to student learning. Rubrics for improving district and school parent involvement policies, the home-school compact, and other policies connected to parent engagement. Documentation of the school's work around the required areas of PI. A huge reservoir of parent involvement resource for use by the school that includes training modules for parents with special needs children. ~ Academic Development Institute http://www.families-schools.org/PIAindex.htm

49. Family Engagement Tool 5 Step Process: 1. Complete School Information Form 2. Gather Key Documents 3. Complete Policy Analysis 4. Complete School Community Survey 5. Complete Needs Assessment

50. Positive Student Outcomes – A Shared Responsibility Through a Statewide System of Support with the ultimate goal of tracing every activity to its impact on a student in a classroom