RESULTS-DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Ann Moore, State Director Office of Special Education (OSE) January 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Making a Difference Improving the Quality of Life of Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and their families.
Advertisements

(Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) and
A Multi-Year Improvement System and Schedule
Presented by Lawrence Dennis Education Consultant for the Office for Exceptional Children October 23, 2014 OCTA Fall Conference.
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
August 2006 OSEP Project Director's Conference 1 Preparing Teachers to Teach All Children: The Impact of the Work of the Center for Improving Teacher Quality.
OAPSA Fall Conference Sue Zake, Director of OEC September 26, 2014.
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY SSIP Implementation Support Activity 1 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.
Special Education Updates John Payne, Interim Director Office of Exceptional Children.
1 EEC Board Policy and Research Committee October 2, 2013 State Advisory Council (SAC) Sustainability for Early Childhood Systems Building.
Principal Evaluation in Massachusetts: Where we are now National Summit on Educator Effectiveness Principal Evaluation Breakout Session #2 Claudia Bach,
9/2/20151 Ohio Family and Children First An overview of OFCF structure, membership, and responsibilities.
Creating a New Vision for Kentucky’s Youth Kentucky Youth Policy Assessment How can we Improve Services for Kentucky’s Youth? September 2005.
State Performance Plan: A Two-Way Street Ruth Ryder Larry Wexler Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning.
Education in Delaware: ESEA Flexibility Renewal Community Town Hall Ryan Reyna, Office of Accountability.
Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) Training Oregon Department of Education Fall 2007.
Special Education in the United States Susie Fahey and Mario Martinez.
Committee of Practitioners ESEA Flexibility Waiver Review June 25, 2014.
STATE CONSORTIUM ON EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS September 10, 2013.
C.O.R.E Creating Opportunities that Result in Excellence.
ESEA Flexibility U.S. Department of Education SECRETARY OF EDUCATION’S PRIORITIES.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
SSIP Implementation Support Visit Idaho State Department of Education September 23-24, 2014.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Participation of the State Advisory Panel and State Interagency.
Significant Changes to the Monitoring Process  Self-assessment by school districts.  Greater involvement of parents and other stakeholders.  Improved.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
SHAME FEAR I AM NOT SEEN ACCESS I AM SEEN SYSTEMS CHANGE I AM A SPECIAL CITIZEN ACCOUNTABILITY and BUILD CAPACITY I BELONG AND MEANINGFUL LIFE EFFECTIVENESS.
HEE Hui For Excellence in Education June 6, 2012
National Consortium On Deaf-Blindness Families Technical Assistance Information Services and Dissemination Personnel Training State Projects.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
1 General Supervision. 2 General Supervision (and Continuous Improvement) 1.What are the minimum Components for General Supervision ? 2.How do the Components.
Ruth Ryder SPDG National Meeting March 5-6, 2013 ESEA Flexibility and SPDG: What’s the connection?
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
Noncompliance and Correction (OSEP Memo 09-02) June 2012.
Georgia Parent Mentor Kickoff: Inform, Imagine, Inspire with Results-Driven Accountability Ruth Ryder DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Our Theory of Action and Multi-Tiered Framework are anchored in the Vision and Mission for the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Office of Student.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center Connecting TA for Part B Indicators 1, 2, 13, & 14: Working Together to Support States OSEP Project.
In accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapters 14 and 15 of the State Board Regulations, PDE provides general supervision.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS FORUM September 29, 2011 Carmel Martin, Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
August 2, Welcome Who is the TSD Continuous Improvement Team ? What is the work of the TSD Continuous Improvement Team? What is.
State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Office of Special Education January 20, 2016.
WHAT A GREAT IDEA!! Focusing on Results and Using IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Part D Investments to Support Improved Outcomes for.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
O S E P Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Aligning the State Performance Plan, Improvement Strategies, and Professional.
1 Willa Spicer, Assistant Commissioner Cathy Pine, Director Carol Albritton, Teacher Quality Coordinator Office of Professional Standards, Licensing and.
MDE Office of Special Education Teri L. Chapman, Ed.S., Director February 17, 2016 MAASE.
Office of School Turnaround Center for Accountability and Improvement, Ohio Department of Education 25 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio
1 Early Intervention Monitoring Wyoming DDD April 2008 Training.
Introductions. 5 of Anything Part 1- Take turns at your table telling the other team members each person’s 5 favorite movies. Part 2- As a group select.
OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs General Supervision: Developing an Effective System Implications for States.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA General Supervision.
March 23, SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS.
NYSED Policy Update Pat Geary Statewide RSE-TASC Meeting May 2013.
Selection Criteria and Invitational Priorities School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Reauthorization 1.
First Things First Grantee Overview.
Time for Change: Examining Utah Data Relating to Student Performance
Public School Monitoring Roadmap
Office of Special Education
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
SPR&I Regional Training
Using Data for Program Improvement
The Every student succeeds act (ESSA): serving the interests of Utah
Using Data for Program Improvement
Presentation transcript:

RESULTS-DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Ann Moore, State Director Office of Special Education (OSE) January 2013

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a Federal law that guarantees a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to each child with a disability throughout the nation. The IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to approximately 7 million eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Office of Special Education 2 RDA January 2013

From the very beginning in 1975 with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (also known as Public Law ), the Federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has required states to focus our resources on procedural compliance through rigorous monitoring efforts and extensive reporting procedures. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 3

Under the IDEA 2004 requirements, the primary goal for providing services to individuals with disabilities is: to prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living. Thus, improving educational results and functional outcomes for students and their families should be the main focus of the accountability system. However, the continued over emphasis on regulatory procedural compliance without consideration of results has created a bureaucratic process for states to implement. IDEA and Accountability RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 4

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) has consistently urged OSEP officials to also consider results and outcomes rather than continuing the heavy emphasis on the compliance indicators alone. Furthermore, the NASDSE Board of Directors has frequently expressed concerns with OSEP leaders concerning the stringent emphasis on procedural compliance requirements established through OSEP directives and guidance documents, including Memorandum The National Association of State Directors of Special Education RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 5

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education recognized that the educational outcomes of children and youth with disabilities have not improved as much as expected even with intensive Federal regulatory oversight and significant funding provided to address closing achievement gaps through programs such as No Child Left Behind and IDEA. U.S. Department of Education RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 6

On March 2, 2012, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced historic changes in Federal policy: To help close the achievement gap for students with disabilities, To move away from a one-size-fits-all, compliance-focused approach, and To craft a more balanced system that looks at how well students are being educated in addition to continued efforts to protect their rights. Historic Changes Announced in 2012 RDA January 2013 Office of Special Education 7

"For too long we've been a compliance-driven bureaucracy when it comes to educating students with disabilities." "We have to expect the very best from our students—and tell the truth about student performance—so that we can give all students the supports and services they need. The best way to do that is by focusing on results." U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 8

A New Model to Strengthen Accountability for Students with Disabilities Moving away from a Regulatory Emphasis on Procedural Compliance to a Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) Model Focusing on Improving Educational Results and Functional Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 9

In order to fulfill the IDEA’s requirements, a more balanced approach to determining program effectiveness in special education is necessary. The Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) vision for Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) is that all components of accountability will be aligned in a manner that best supports states in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families. OSEP’s Vision for RDA RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 10

Children with disabilities are part of, not separate from, the general education population. Thus, special education accountability should strengthen and compliment other ED reform initiatives, including ESEA flexibility. An emphasis on compliance over results in special education fails to acknowledge those states where children with disabilities are achieving and being prepared for a range of college and career options appropriate to their individual needs and preferences. The accountability system under the IDEA should provide meaningful information to the public regarding the effectiveness of states and local educational agencies in educating children with disabilities. OSEP’s Rationale for Change and Background Points RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 11

1.A system that is developed in partnership with our stakeholders 2.A system that is transparent and understandable to states and the general public, especially individuals with disabilities and their families 3.A system that drives improved outcomes for all children and youth with disabilities regardless of their age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location Core Principles of RDA RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 12

4.A system that ensures the protection of the individual rights of each child or youth with a disability and their families, regardless of his/her age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location 5.A system that provides differentiated incentives, supports, and interventions based on each state’s unique strengths, progress, challenges, and needs Core Principles of RDA RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 13

6.A system that encourages states to direct their resources to where they can have the greatest positive impact on outcomes –and the protection of individual rights for all children and youth with disabilities –and minimizes state burden and duplication of effort 7.A system that is responsive to the needs and expectations of the ultimate consumers (i.e., children and youth with disabilities and their families) as they identify them Core Principles of RDA RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 14

A more balanced approach for determining program effectiveness in special education will be implemented in An annual review of all indicator data for both compliance and results from the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) will be required. The state as well as local districts will be held accountable jointly to improve results and demonstrate growth over time. This new focus on joint responsibility for accountability will require states and local districts to establish collaborative models that will address improving educational results and student learning outcomes. NEW RDA MODEL RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 15

The designation “Meets Requirements” should acknowledge a state’s effectiveness in improving outcomes for children and youth with disabilities relative to other states and to the nation as well as ensuring that states meet the IDEA program requirements. Mississippi is one of the few states that achieved a “Meets Requirements” determination for four consecutive years based on the compliance indicators in the SPP/APR. OSEP is constructing a new matrix for making annual determinations that will address student achievement and growth as well as other student outcome measures such as graduation rates. State Accountability and Annual Determinations RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 16

Our next Annual Performance Report will be submitted to OSEP on February 15, 2013, and State determinations will be announced in late June or early July Each local school district will now receive an annual determination based on the district’s overall performance results on a set of priority indicators and other relevant data rather than only compliance indicators beginning in fall of Moving Forward in 2013 with RDA RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 17

Engage stakeholders in developing the State’s RDA model. Revise State policies to: –incorporate the RDA model, and –establish a differentiated system of monitoring and technical assistance (TA) based on the performance indicator data. Redesign internal work processes to better support local districts in improving results. Next Steps for Mississippi in 2013 RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 18

Develop service models to better support local school districts in improving results and outcomes. Establish and train service teams to implement a differentiated system of monitoring, technical assistance, and support for local school districts. Provide targeted technical assistance and supports to districts and schools with the most significant needs for improvement. Next Steps for Mississippi in 2013 RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 19

The Office of Special Education assures that programs and services for students with disabilities meet State and Federal requirements. This involves both compliance and technical assistance functions. Office of Special Education Primary Functions RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 20

Compliance functions include continuous monitoring compliance through data reports, administering the due process system, providing mediation services, conducting complaint investigations and fiscal audits, approving policies and procedures, conducting focused and Comprehensive reviews, and approving nonpublic special education programs. Compliance Functions RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 21

Technical assistance functions involve providing information and guidance on regulations as well as promising practices in educating students with disabilities, including numerous Statewide and regional trainings and technical assistance initiatives, administering the comprehensive system of personnel development for special education, and management of grant programs to school districts for special education service delivery. Technical Assistance RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 22

Improving educational results and functional outcomes for EVERY child and youth with disabilities In the new RDA model, all components of accountability will be aligned in a manner that best supports the local education agencies (LEAs) in improving educational results and functional outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. New Vision for the Office of Special Education RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 23

The primary function of the Office of Special Education (OSE) will be refocused to provide a more service-oriented organization that seeks to improve the educational results and functional outcomes for EVERY child and youth with disabilities.  We will strive to nurture a dedicated staff through professional development opportunities, field experience, and individual accountability.  We will coordinate services, including training, technical assistance, and supports, to local school districts as well as parents and families to provide effective educational programs and services to students with disabilities, ages 3-20, who need special education and related services. New Mission of Service RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 24

The Office of Special Education will continue efforts to monitor and enforce the IDEA program requirements and to protect the rights of students with disabilities and their families. The IDEA requires states to monitor LEAs, but it does not specifically require on-site monitoring of each LEA. The Office of Special Education will fulfill its statutory responsibility to monitor all local educational agencies (LEAs) through the Annual Performance Reports (APR) and monitoring of compliance with fiscal requirements. General Supervision and IDEA Requirements RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 25

A differentiated system of monitoring and technical assistance will be developed and implemented to support LEAs with the most significant needs for improvement. The Office of Special Education will continue to investigate Formal State Complaints, as required by the IDEA regulations, and protect the rights of students with disabilities and their families. Monitoring and Compliance RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 26

All school districts will be monitored through ongoing review of the required data reports, including fiscal data reports. Performance data will be used to determine the appropriate level of monitoring, technical assistance, and additional support for districts that do not receive an annual designation of Meets Requirements. Monitoring and Technical Assistance RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 27

Using data on priority indicators, districts with identified needs may receive an on-site visit that will be designed to provide targeted technical assistance and supports –utilizing a collaborative approach to analyze data, and –jointly planning strategies for program improvement. Monitoring and Technical Assistance RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 28

For more information about the work of the U.S. Department's Office of Special Education Programs, see For more information on the 20 Part B Indicators, see Bartlett, John C., Attitudes for Excellence, Principal Leadership, September 2012 References RDA January 2013Office of Special Education 29