Office for Exceptional Children Updates OAPSA February 6, 2015

The Federal Agenda USDOE, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education USDOE, Office of Special Education Programs 1

How states focus, support and measure student learning outcomes RDA is framed to Impact …

Comprehensive Monitoring – Focus on Results TA/Support Onsite Monitoring Districts Bucyrus CityCanfield Local Coshocton CityNorth Dayton School Of Science & Discovery Parkway LocalPlain Local Schnee Learning CenterSylvania City Wellington Ex. VillageWest Geauga Local Wilmington City SPP Indicator Monitoring - ALL Selective Reviews – A few

State Systemic Improvement Plan Year 1 Delivered by April 2015 Year 2 Delivered by February 2016 Years 3-6 Delivered Feb Phase I – AnalysisPhase II – Plan Phase III – Evaluation 1)Data analysis 2)Infrastructure analysis 3)Focus area 4)Improvement strategies 5)Theory of action 1)Infrastructure development 2)Support for LEA implementation of EBPs 3)Evaluation Report progress on SSIP implementation RDA

The Purpose of the SSIP: Shared Learning, Partnerships, and Innovative Practice

Ohio’s SSIP: Process and Action Strategic Focus Area: Early Literacy Improving results for children and youth with disabilities and other diverse learners Strategies that address: the role of parents; early identification and intervention; phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading ; clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the effectiveness of different types of reading instruction; the role of teachers, their professional development, and their interactions and collaborations ; the role of higher education and other collaborative partners.

Ohio’s Annual Performance Report (APR) Submitted Feb. 2, 2015 SAPEC: indicator target setting

Compliance Indicators

Indicator 4B Indicator: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions or expulsions for greater than 10 days for children with IEPs; and policies, procedures or practices that do not comply with IDEA requirements.

Indicator 11 Indicator: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation.

Indicator 12 Indicator: Percent of children referred by Part C, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthdays.

Indicator 13 Indicator: Percent of youth aged 16 and above with compliant transition plans in their IEPs.

Complaint Timelines Timely Resolution of State Complaints: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline.

Due Process Timelines Timely Adjudication of Due Process Hearing Requests: 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.

OEC Dispute Resolution Significant increase in the number of mediations and facilitations Updated Complaint Procedures

Results Indicators

Indicator 1 Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. *Four-year graduation rate required beginning 11-12

Indicator 2 Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

Indicator 3C Math Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above the proficient level on statewide math assessments.

Indicator 3C Reading Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above the proficient level on statewide reading assessments.

Indicator 5A Indicator: Percent of children with IEPs ages 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day.

Indicator 6 Indicator: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending: A) Regular early childhood program; or B) Separate special education class, school or facility.

Indicator 7 Indicator: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved: A.Positive social-emotional skills; B.Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (early literacy); and C.Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Indicator 14 Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who, within one year of leaving high school, are enrolled in higher education, participating in a training program, or competitively employed.

State and District Determinations District determination results are used to make the state’s determination.

Compliance Matrix

Results Matrix

Performance on compliance indicators; Uncorrected noncompliance from any source; Submission of valid, reliable and timely data; and IDEA-specific audit findings.

State Systemic Improvement Plan Year 1 Delivered by April 2015 Year 2 Delivered by February 2016 Years 3-6 Delivered Feb Phase I – AnalysisPhase II – Plan Phase III – Evaluation 1)Data analysis 2)Infrastructure analysis 3)Focus area 4)Improvement strategies 5)Theory of action 1)Infrastructure development 2)Support for LEA implementation of EBPs 3)Evaluation Report progress on SSIP implementation

Ohio’s SSIP: Strategic Focus Area: Early Literacy Improving results for children and youth with disabilities and other diverse learners Strategies that address: the role of parents and other collaborative partners, especially in providing children with early language and literacy experiences that foster reading development; early identification and intervention for all children at risk for reading failure; phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading instruction and the need to develop a clear understanding of how best to integrate different reading approaches to enhance the effectiveness of instruction for all students; clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the effectiveness of different types of reading instruction and the need to have such research inform policy and practice; the role of teachers, their professional development, and their interactions and collaborations with researchers the role of higher education and other collaborative partners in the design and delivery of teacher preparation programs that prepare teachers to understand and provide effective reading instruction to diverse learners.

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restraint and Seclusion Keyword search: Restraint and Seclusion

HB 178 Signed December 2014 Effects: Community Schools STEM Schools & College Preparatory Boarding Schools Effective: March 2015

Results of Year 1 District Reporting

Survey Responses 560 Traditional Schools 167 Community Schools 11 Education Service Center 22 Career Technical Ed Total Respondents: 760

PBIS Restraint and Seclusion Policy 646 districts System or Framework of PBIS 758 districts

Data Trends Special Education: 97% General Education: 3%

Data Trends school year

Prevention & Support: PBIS Project AWARE

Positive Transformations for Ohio Schools: Building Statewide Positive Supports A statewide network of trained, experienced professionals Evidence-based system for evaluating fidelity and outcomes of PBIS

Cross-Agency Collaboration Prevention and Support

Making Ohio AWARE: Building Statewide Mental Health First Aid

Extracurricular Athletics Reminder: Jan. 25, 2013 US Department of Education guidanceJan. 25, 2013 US Department of Education guidance Extracurricular Athletics –Access –Parallel athletic programs

Challenges State Assessments Third Grade Reading Guarantee RIMP – IEP FBA / BIP

Development Work Urban Monitoring and Support Transitional Youth: Career pathways exploration and work experience, self- directed planning for some, staff training, support post-high school Exploring system for statewide IEP/ETR/special ed. documentation

RFPs & Projects Center for Sensory Disabilities Transition Training Modules for middle school and secondary teachers PBIS development RFPs awarded: –Recognition System –Training –Tier 2 and 3 development: resources and training

OAPSA Representation Needed … Field test online special education guidance format Determinations considerations and calculation workgroup Expanded SSIP workgroup: focus on strategies State IEP/ETR/special ed data system

education.ohio.gov Sue Zake