Students with Disabilities in the P-16 Framework Outcomes and Improvement Strategies SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

“Facing today’s educational challenges means improving critical systems and structures that support achievement from the earliest years though college completion.” Source: Commissioner Mills Report to the Board of Regents, October 2006 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

GOALS: 1. Close the great divide in achievement along lines of income, race and ethnicity, language and disability. 2. Keep up with growing demands for still more knowledge and skill in the face of increasing competition in a changing global economy. Source: Commissioner Mills Report to the Board of Regents, October 2006 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Results for Students with Disabilities Source: Report to the Board of Regents, June 2007SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

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 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

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 being lost. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Final: April 2007 Classification Rate increased slightly but has been fairly stable for the past few years. *Revised methodology SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Source: BEDS Data and December 1, 2005 PD1/4, Final: April 2007 All minorities are over represented in special education except Asians, who are significantly underrepresented. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Final: June 2007 Compared to rest of State, special education services in Big Five Cities are much more often provided in separate classes & separate settings SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA): Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4 Students with disabilities meeting the ELA learning standards increased at every grade, even with the increase in ELL students with disabilities tested. Overall, 1 in 5 students with disabilities performs at grade level. Gap: Compare the 22.8% average for students with disabilities across grades 3-8 with that for all students in grades 3-8 at 63.4%. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

2006 and 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) Students with Disabilities English Language Learners Percentages at Levels 3 & 4 Students with disabilities (SWD) who are English Language Learners (ELL) meeting the ELA learning standards increased at every grade, but the increases are very low. Overall, 1 in 12 students with disabilities who is an English Language Learner performs at grade level. Gap: Students with disabilities in grades 3-8 who were not English Language Learners were 3 times as likely to meet the standards than students with disabilities who are English Language Learners. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

2006 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA): Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1 In every grade, fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems. Gap: Compare the averages across grades 3-8 for students with disabilities at 25.1% with that for all students in grades 3-8 at 6.1%. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Except in the Large City Districts, more students with disabilities met the standards in Gap: Variations among need/resource categories were substantial & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

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 & 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by Need/Resource Categories: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

2006 & 2007 Mathematics: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4 Performance of students with disabilities meeting the Mathematics Standards increased at every grade in Overall, 1 out of 3 students with disabilities performs at grade level. Gap: Compare the 37.2% average for students with disabilities across grades 3-8 with that for all grade 3-8 at 72.7%. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

2006 & 2007 Mathematics: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1 In every grade, fewer students with disabilities showed serious academic problems. Gap: Compare the average across grades 3-8 for students with disabilities at 28.2% with that for all students in grades 3-8 at 7.5% SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

2006 & 2007 Mathematics by Need/Resource Categories: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 & 4 Students with Disabilities in Low Need Districts were 3 times as likely as those in Large City Districts to meet the standards in Gap: Variations among need/resource categories were substantial. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

The percentage of students with disabilities in serious academic difficulties decreased in every category. Gap: Students with Disabilities in Large City Districts were about 4 times times as likely as those in Low Need Districts to score at Level & 2007 Mathematics by Need/Resource Categories: Percentages of Students with Disabilities at Level 1 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

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 Regents English Examination and Students with Disabilities Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final April 2007SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Since 1997, there has been a 323% increase in the number of students with disabilities tested. Of the students tested in 2006, 70% achieved a score between *Beginning in 1999, students take either of the two math examinations. Sequential Mathematics Course I examination ended in Regents Sequential Mathematics Course I and Math A Examinations and Students with Disabilities Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final April 2007SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Regents Diplomas Earned by Students with Disabilities Public Schools-Including Charter Schools Students graduating with Regents diplomas in were required to pass five Regents examinations compared to eight being required in previous years. Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, more than 10 times as many students with disabilities are earning Regents diplomas. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Student Group Cohort Enrollment Regents/ Local Diploma IEP Diploma & Other Still Enrolled Transfer to GED Dropout 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years All Students214, %1.8%18.4%4.8%10.9% Gen.Ed. Students 187, %0.0%17.7%4.5%9.7% Students with Disabilities 26, %14.4%22.8%6.6%18.9% 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years All Students212, %2.4%5.1%1.4%18.9% Gen. Ed. Students 185, %0.1%4.7%1.2%17.5% Students with Disabilities 26, %18.8%7.3%2.4%28.6% 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years All Students216, %2.0%15.8%1.4%14.2% Gen. Ed. Students 189, %0.1%14.7%1.3%13.0% Students with Disabilities 27, %14.8%23.1%2.6%21.9% High School Outcomes for 2001 and 2002 Total Cohorts Final: June 2007 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Outcomes for 2001 Total Cohort of Students with Disabilities After 5 Years by Need/Resource Capacity Total State Includes Charter Schools, Final- April 2007 More students in the Big Five Cities dropped out than graduated. Gap: There are substantial variations in outcomes by need/resource capacity of school districts. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Dropping Out Is Not A Sudden Decision And Can Be Made As Early As 6 th Grade Observable Risk Factors Predicting Drop Outs Problem behaviors coupled with academic difficulties or prior academic failures Repeated exclusion from class for disciplinary reasons High absenteeism and being held back Feelings of isolation and alienation from school environment Bost, L.W. “Building Effective Dropout Prevention Programs- Some Practical Strategies from Research and Practice,” 2007 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Two Major Types of Drop Out Risk Factors Academic Performance Educational Engagement SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Effective Dropout Prevention Practices Use a whole-school approach Establish an early warning system to collect data on the predictive factors and be ready to intervene Intervene often and early with support for reading, math and prosocial behavior, especially at transition points Engage parents in setting high expectations for students’ post-school transitions Create safe & supportive learning environments in school Help students build positive relationships with teachers and peers; assist them with resolving personal problems SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Post School Status of Special Education Students At Interview, One Year After June 2006 School Exit Post-School Outcome Interviews, 2007 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

What Makes a Difference in Successful Post-School Transitions? Transition Planning, K-12. Career Preparation, especially Paid or Unpaid Work Experiences in the Community. Safe, Supportive Educational Environment. Integrated Learning Environments. Attainment of a Standards Based Diploma. Collaboration among Student, Parents, School and Community. New York State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, LPSI Study SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Strategies for Improving Student Performance in the P-16 Initiative SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

The Regents & the State Education Department are Targeting help to schools that need it Addressing literacy, specifically reading Addressing behavioral issues Identifying and promoting effective practices Identifying and promoting effective delivery of special education services for students appropriate for special education services Reducing disproportionality SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Action 1 Identify Low Performing Schools & Target Improvements Set annual State targets for improvement Set annual State targets for improvement Publish performance data Publish performance data Hold low-performing schools accountable Hold low-performing schools accountable Redirect IDEA funds in low-performing schools Redirect IDEA funds in low-performing schools SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Action 2 Help Districts Improve Instructional Practices Identify instructional practices contributing to poor student performance and help districts make improvements Describe and promote effective practices through district-to-district assistance Improved literacy Positive behavioral interventions Effective special education service delivery SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Contracts for Excellence: Targets Predominantly benefit students with greatest educational needs English language learners & limited English proficiency Students in poverty Students with disabilities Schools identified as requiring academic progress, corrective action or restructuring with emphasis on the most serious academic problems For evidence-based practices that facilitate student attainment of learning standards SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

dedicated block(s) of time created for instruction in content areas that facilitate student attainment of State learning standards; research-based core instructional program must be used during such daily dedicated block(s) of instructional time; a response-to-intervention program; and/or individualized intensive intervention shall be provided. Contracts for Excellence Require Dedicated Instructional Time, such as SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Action 3 Align VESID Technical Assistance Resources Direct technical assistance (TA) resources to address school improvements in: Literacy Behavioral supports Quality delivery of special education services Improve achievement and reduce disproportionate representation of minority students by: Preventing inappropriate referrals Increasing declassification rates Expand availability and capacity of TA centers to promote training and implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in the Large 4 and BOCES SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Action 4 Increase Positive Post School Outcomes Increase the number of students with disabilities transitioning directly from high schools to: vocational rehabilitation training programs employment college SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Policy Context for Assessment, Curriculum and Instruction SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Special Education 101 Access to general education in the least restrictive environment Eligibility for special education only if poor performance due to disability is not due to poor instruction Alternative and Modified Achievement Assessments align to core curriculum Educational benefit State Performance Plan Purpose of IDEA is post-school transition

All IEPs developed on or after January 1, 2009 must be on a form prescribed by the Commissioner Effective January 1, 2009, all Prior Notices must be on a form prescribed by the Commissioner Effective January 1, 2009, all Meeting Notices must be on a form prescribed by the Commissioner Mandated Forms SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

General Education Context Learning Standards & Core Curriculums Designations of Schools for Improvement Using Achievement Data Literacy Initiatives Early Childhood Education Reading First Contracts for Excellence

Response to Intervention Policy Framework Intertwines General and Special Education RtI minimum components, §100.2(ii) RtI and school wide screening, §117.3 RtI as a “Contracts for Excellence” program Boards of education pre-referral responsibilities, §200.2(b)(7) RtI and learning disabilities, §200.4(j)

RtI Minimum Components, §100.2(ii) Appropriate instruction in the general education class by qualified personnel Screenings identify students not making academic progress at expected rates Instruction matched to student need with increasingly intensive levels of targeted intervention for those not making satisfactory progress Repeated assessments determine if interventions result in student making progress toward standards Information about student’s response to intervention used to make educational decisions

Parents Informed about RtI Written notification about the:   amount and nature of student performance data to be collected and the general education services to be provided   strategies for increasing the student’s rate of learning; and   parents’ right to request an evaluation for special education

Each District Designs Its RtI Model Each district must select and define the specific structure and components of its RtI program, including, but not limited to: criteria for determining levels of intervention to provide to students, types of interventions, amount and nature of student performance data to be collected and manner and frequency for progress monitoring

Fidelity of Implementation of RtI The district must take appropriate steps to ensure that staff have the knowledge and skills necessary to implement a response to intervention program, and the program is implemented consistent with the specific structure and components of the model.

School-wide Screening for Students with Low Test Scores, §117.2 and §117.3 shall be monitored periodically through screenings and on-going assessments of the student’s reading and mathematic abilities and skills; and if making sub-standard progress, instruction shall be tailored to meet individual needs with increasingly intensive levels of targeted intervention and instruction. Parents shall receive written notification … including their right to a referral for special education services.

Board of Education Pre-referral Responsibilities, §200.2(b)(7) Written policy shall establish administrative practices and procedures for implementing schoolwide approaches, which may include a response to intervention process and prereferral interventions in order to remediate a student’s performance prior to referral for special education

Determining Learning Disabilities for Special Education, §200.4(j) If you use the RtI process, you still must conduct a complete individual evaluation May not rely on any single procedure Must include observation of student’s academic performance in the regular classroom Determine that learning problems are NOT the result of lack of appropriate instruction in math and reading SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

Key Actions for 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 SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

School Leadership Roles Assure key personnel are informed about changing public policy reflected in law, regulation, guidance; know learning standards and understand the implications for their work. Provide professional development in evidence- based instructional practices. Use whole school approaches. Use data to plan for individual student and programmatic improvements. Lead instruction and change processes. SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ

References & Links   P-16 Education: A Plan for Action   Report to the Board of Regents on Closing the Achievement Gap: Strategies for Students with Disabilities Implemented in d4.doc d4.doc   Results for Students and Individuals with Disabilities in and Final2007.ppt:// Final2007.ppt   State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report   Special Education Policy Guidance, Laws and Regulations SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ