Indicator 4A & 4B Rates of Suspension & Expulsion Revised Methodology Identification of Significant Discrepancy DE-PBS Cadre December 1, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What is problem-solving? A decision making process that uses data 1. Problem Identification 2. Problem Analysis 3. Plan Development 4. Plan Implementation.
Advertisements

Practice Profiles Guidance for West Virginia Schools and Districts April 2012.
Progress Towards Reading Success: The Reading First Evaluation Prepared by: Amy Kemp, Ph.D. Research Associate and Patricia A. Muller, Ph.D. Associate.
Disproportionality in Special Education
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
Addressing the Disproportionate Representation of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Students in Special Education SPR&I Regional Training.
Angela Tanner-Dean Diana Chang OSEP October 14, 2010.
Student Services Personnel and RtI: Bridging the Skill Gap FASSA Institute George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director Institute for School Reform Florida.
Early Childhood Transition Forums Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Disproportionality of Racial and Ethnic Groups in Special Education Significant Disproportionality and EIS versus Disproportionate Representation due to.
Office of Special Education Services Instructional Leaders Roundtable Oct. 16, 2014 John R. Payne, Director.
Special Education Accountability Reviews Let’s put the pieces together March 25, 2015.
1 Early Childhood Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education Early Childhood Special Education Maria Synodi.
Subrecipient Monitoring FY15 of Education Oklahoma State Department of Education Office of Federal Programs Federal Programs Office of Titles I, II, III,
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
DE-PBS Cadre Meeting Tuesday, February 15, Upcoming Events Inclusion Conference – March 15, 2011 Jill Kuzma Social Skills Workshops: ◦ March 22,
Accountability for Results State Performance Plan improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities…
Welcome to the Regional SPR&I trainings Be sure to sign in Be sure to sign in You should have one school age OR EI/ECSE packet of handouts You.
Monitoring Significant Disproportionality in Special Education Systems Performance Review & Improvement Fall Training 2011.
1 Results for Students with Disabilities and School Year Data Report for the RSE-TASC Statewide Meeting May 2010.
Significant Changes to the Monitoring Process  Self-assessment by school districts.  Greater involvement of parents and other stakeholders.  Improved.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
SPR&I: Changes, New Measures/Targets, and Lessons Learned from Focused Monitoring Visits David Guardino, SPR&I Coordinator Fall 2009 COSA Conference.
Fall 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Updates.
Focused Monitoring November 10, 2010 Bureau of Special Education 1.
IDEA & Disproportionality Perry Williams, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Data Slides for Children & Students with IEPs in 2010 Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
State Performance Plan (SPP) Annual Performance Report (APR) Dana Corriveau Bureau of Special Education Connecticut State Department of Education ConnCASEOctober.
Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools Programs for Exceptional Children State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance.
Intensive Technical Assistance Schools Identified with Continued Findings of Noncompliance for SY March 10, 2011.
DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION SYSTEM BOB ALGOZZINE AND STEVE GOODMAN National PBIS Leadership Forum Hyatt Regency O’Hare Rosemont, Illinois October 14, 2010.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
Jeopardy The LawDataFiscal CentsCEIS PlanExtras Q $100 Q $200 Q $300 Q $400 Q $500 Q $100 Q $200 Q $300 Q $400 Q $500 Final Jeopardy.
Texas State Performance Plan Data, Performance, Results TCASE Leadership Academy Fall 2008.
Presented by the Early Childhood Transition Program Priority Team August 11, 2010 Updated September 2010.
Kentucky Continuous Monitoring Process Spring 2012.
Focused Review of Improvement Indicators A Self-Assessment Process SPP Stakeholder Meeting December 16, 2009.
District Annual Determinations IDEA Part B Sections 616(a) and (e) A State must consider the following four factors: 1.Performance on compliance.
YEAR #2 DETERMINATIONS ISD Special Education Directors’ Meeting September 18, 2008.
Spring 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Office of Instructional Enhancement and Internal Operations/Office of Special Education 1 SPP/APR Update.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction Improving Special Education Services November 2010 Sacramento, CA SPP/APR Update.
Significant Discrepancy in Suspension and Expulsion Rates in West Virginia: Barriers to Implementation of Discipline Policy and Procedures November 15,
State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report/Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (SPP/APR/CIPP) Buncombe County Schools 2013.
Equity in IDEA ___________________ NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Michael Yudin Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Ruth.
State Advisory Panel & Interagency Coordinating Council Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)Significant Disproportionality & Overview of SAP/ICC Website.
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
Understanding the Data on Preschool Child Find and Transition Annual Performance Report Indicator 12 February, 2016
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
Top Ten Policy Tips for Special Education Carol Ann M. Hudgens, Ed.S Section Chief: Policy, Monitoring and Audit Exceptional Children Division April 2015.
Continuous Improvement Performance Plan (CIPP) New Hanover County Schools Students with Disabilities Data Story.
WELCOME What is on your table? Agenda for both days
What is “Annual Determination?”
Discipline Identification and Reporting
Disproportionality: Tier Two Monitoring Activities
Special Education Reviews: A new paradigm for LEAs
DISPROPORTIONALITY REGULATIONS
New Significant Disproportionality Regulations
CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Disproportionality Institute March 29-30, 2018 Little Rock, Arkansas
Recommendations for an Early Childhood Suspension and Expulsion Policy
TEA Corrective Action Plan
Regional Meetings for Teachers of the Deaf Spring 2014
Data Update State of California
Disproportionality Prevention Support
Significant Disproportionality Fiscal Webinar
Significant Disproportionality Stakeholder Meeting
Significant Disproportionality
Presentation transcript:

Indicator 4A & 4B Rates of Suspension & Expulsion Revised Methodology Identification of Significant Discrepancy DE-PBS Cadre December 1, 2011

Overview of Presentation Purpose –Present Revised Methodology –Gather Input –Outline Review Process

Rates of Suspension and Expulsion A. Percent of Local Education Agencies (LEAs) identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in the school year. B. Percent of LEAs identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.

: A. 36.8% of districts (7 districts) are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year : A. 36.8% of districts (7 districts) are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year : A. 26.3% of districts (5 districts) are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year : A. 15.7% of districts (3 districts) are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year : A. 0% of districts (0 districts) are identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.

Significant Discrepancy Definition Rate Ratio Method An LEA has a significant discrepancy when the rate of long term suspension/ expulsions for students with disabilities compared to the rate for students without disabilities is greater than the “state bar.”

Significant Discrepancy Definition Rate Ratio Method Setting the Bar Calculated for State suspension rates Informs decision to set “bar” Compared to LEA rates to identify significant discrepancy Propose that “bar” will be reduced each year from initial bar Please note – not a floating bar – one that changes yearly based on LEA rates

Significant Discrepancy Definition Rate Ratio Method – State Bar Step 1:Calculate State % of Students with Disabilities (SWD) Special Ed Students Suspended > 10 days Special Ed Students in State Step 2: Calculate State % of Students without Disabilities (SWOD) General Ed Students Suspended > 10 days General Ed Students in State

Significant Discrepancy Definition Rate Ratio Method – State Bar Step 3: Calculate Rate Ratio State % of SWD Suspended > 10 days State % of SWOD Suspended > 10 days Step 4: Use State Rate Ratio to Inform “Bar” TBD – Final calculations in process Step 5: Determine Cell Size for 4A & 4B: 4A - > 15 SWD Suspended/ Expelled > 10 days 4B - > 10 SWD Suspended/ Expelled > 10 days

Significant Discrepancy Definition Rate Ratio Method – State Bar Step 6: Define Significant Discrepancy: 4A - LEAs with Rate Ratio above “Bar” and 15 or more students in cell 4B - LEAs with Rate Ratio above “Bar” and 10 or more students in cell

District example 4A Rate Ratio Step 1:Calculate LEA % of Students with Disabilities (SWD) 47 Special Ed Students Suspended > 10 days = 3.7% 1287 Special Ed Students in LEA Step 2: Calculate LEA % of Students without Disabilities (SWOD) 46 General Ed Students Suspended > 10 days = 0.9% 5322 General Ed Students in LEA Step 3: Calculate Rate Ratio 3.7 LEA % of SWD Suspended > 10 days = LEA % of SWOD Suspended > 10 days Step 4: Compare LEA Rate Ratio to “Bar” 4.1 (LEA Rate Ratio) compared to State “Bar”

District example 4B Rate Ratio Step 1: Calculate LEA % of Students with Disabilities (SWD) - Each Racial Category 28 Black SWD Suspended > 10 days= 3.9% 710 Black SWD in LEA Step 2: Calculate LEA % of Students without Disabilities (SWOD) 46 General Ed Students Suspended > 10 days = 0.9% 5322 General Ed Students in LEA Step 3: Calculate Rate Ratio 3.9 LEA % of Black SWD Suspended > 10 days = LEA % of SWOD Suspended > 10 days Step 4: Compare LEA Rate Ratio to “Bar” 4.3 (LEA Rate Ratio) > State “Bar”

Next Steps – Indicators 4A & 4B Consider input of Stakeholder Groups –Special Ed Leadership, DE-PBS Core, GACEC, DE-PBS Cadre Confirm data & set “State Bar” Identify LEAs with Significant Discrepancies –Indicator 4B –Indicators 4A & 4B – Distribute notification letters mid-December Conduct reviews of identified LEAs’ policies, procedures, practices –Reviews due April 15, 2011 Monitor for non-compliance & verify corrections

LEA Review Process Notification letters to be accompanied by review “template” with guiding questions/prompts Important note: LEAs may be identified for up to 3 areas across 2 years Reviews can be conducted simultaneously, but must separately consider policies, procedures, and practices from and as applicable Reviews policies, procedures, and practices to ensure compliance with IDEA relating to: -development and implementation of IEPs -use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, -procedural safeguards

APR Improvement Activities Centered around compliance monitoring & technical assistance Focus of DE-PBS Project –Increase fidelity of implementation –Build capacity for Tiered PBS supports –Provide PD, Technical Assistance, and Progress Monitoring Tools –Guide use of data for planning & evaluation DE Assessment of Strengths and Needs for PBS DE PBS Key Feature Evaluation DE School Climate Survey – Staff, Students, Home Office Referral and Suspension Data –Collaboration with LEA-based Coaches