1. Idaho RESULTS Work OSEP Visit 2011
Richard Henderson
Idaho State Department of Education
Division of Federal Programs
Division of Special Education

3. Here we have Idaho…. There are ~132 districts and 730 sites in Idaho.
There are ~ 275,000 students in Idaho.
We educate ~ 28,000 students with disabilities.
That is about 10.1% of the student population.
81% are White
14% are Hispanic
1.6% are Native American
1.3% are Asian
1.2% are Black

4. System Focus
"You don't change performance without changing the instructional core. The relationship of the teacher and the student in the presence of content must be at the center of effort to improve performance. If you can't see it in the classroom, it's not there.”
Richard Elmore
Harvard University

5. In the Beginning….
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires every state to have "a statewide system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for districts and schools" that ensures the necessary supports are in place at every level of the educational system so students are getting the help they need to reach their full potential.
"You can put the best teachers up against the weakest system, and the system will win every time. So we're out to change the system."
Presentation to the Idaho Legislature, Dr. Marybeth Flachbart

6. In the Beginning
In 2007, the state determined that there was a need for increased support and technical assistance to Idaho schools and districts.
Especially in relation to those in
school improvement,
corrective action, or
restructuring
Special Education was a factor, but not a focus.

7. Idaho SSoS
Instructional Core Focus Visits helped target areas of concern.
Although successful in increasing achievement in many districts and schools, another problem emerged.
For districts to truly turnaround, SWD would have to be part of future planning.

8. Idaho SSoS
Division of Special Education became a full partner in SSoS.
Utilized Evaluation Process from CII
SPED “Platform Audit”
Cycle of Inquiry
Develop of Problem of Practice
Theory of Action
Logic Model

9. Idaho SPED Platform Audit
Performed by WRRC/RRCP
Jim Leinen, Anita Pierce, Cesar D’Agord and Susan Hayes
Completed in June 2011
Two Part Assessment
Self Assessment done via SEA staff
Interviews of LEA Special Education Directors representing the demographics of Idaho

10. Platform Audit – Division Functions
Looking at Capacity and Effectiveness in 6 areas:
Providing Information
Setting Standards
Distributing Resources
Monitoring Compliance
Assisting District Improvement
Intervene to Correct Deficiencies

12. Then along came OSEP….
Lets do this thing called Results…

13. Clear Intentions

14. OSEP Results Work
OSEP asked States to identify one performance area to improve
OSEP would leverage USDOE Resources to work with States
Access to USDOE TA-D Resource Centers
State develop a 5 yr Plan to targeted area

15. Student Performance Top Priority Idaho Annual Performance Report –
Submitted February 1, 2011
Indicator 3: FAPE in the LRE
Specifically, Indicator 3A:
Performance of students with disabilities on both Reading and Math in Statewide Assessments

16. Student Performance Indicator 3A What was required: What we did:
Target/Goal: 59%
About 38 out 63 districts meeting n
What we did:
Actual: 8%
5 out of 63 districts meeting n

17. Student Performance A look further back.. Indicator 3C (State data)
Baseline of 34% on the school year,
4% in 06-07,
14% in 07-08,
18% in 08-09,
and back down to 8% in
Indicator 3C (State data)
SWD have never made proficiency in Reading
SWD made Proficiency in Math once (48.1%/48%)

18. Performance of SLD Students on ISAT
Baseline Data:
Performance of SLD Students on ISAT
Data Sources:
Idaho State Department of Education

19. Performance of SLD Students on ISAT SY 2010-2011
ISAT Language
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Null
Total
SLD Students
2,975
2,219
1,398
100 19
6,711
% by Performance Level
44.3%
33.1%
20.8%
1.5%
0.3%
100.0%
ISAT Mathematics
2,296
2,160
1,899
354 20
6,729
34.1%
32.1%
28.2%
5.3%
ISAT Reading
1,863
1,912
2,577
405 21
6,778
27.5%
38.0%
6.0%
ISAT Science
This is the baseline data for Idaho’s result area. It is the performance of students with specific learning disabilities in the ISAT. We do not have longitudinal data due to a recent change in student identification codes. Although this is our official baseline data, once we have a second year of data we may need to change the baseline to fit only the students who will have two years worth of data, and so forth for the third and subsequent years of this priority. This is our starting point.

20. Statewide ISAT Language Results 2010-11 (SLD Students)
Performance in the ISAT language.

21. Statewide ISAT Mathematics Results 2010-11 (SLD Students)
Performance in the ISAT Mathematics.

22. Statewide ISAT Reading Results 2010-11 (SLD Students)
Performance in the ISAT Reading.

23. Statewide ISAT Science Results 2010-11 (SLD Students)
Performance in the ISAT Science.

24. Idaho Regions Region 1: Bonners Ferry, Sandpoint, Coeur d'Alene
Region 2: Moscow, Lewiston, Orofino, Grangeville
Region 3: McCall, Boise, Mountain Home
Region 4: Hailey, Jerome, Burley, Twin Falls
Region 5: Pocatello, Soda Springs, American Falls, Dayton
Region 6: Salmon, Rexburg, Idaho Falls, Rigby

25. ISAT Results by Region % SLD Students Proficient 2010-11
Language
Mathematics
Reading
Science
# SLD Students
% SLD Students Proficient
Region 1
797
27.10%
798
39.97%
801
51.56%
316
19.94%
Region 2
420
24.29%
422
32.70%
418
45.22%
161
18.63%
Region 3
2842
22.38%
2847
2872
44.81%
1057
19.77%
Region 4
593
23.27%
592
34.29%
39.80%
217
19.35%
Region 5
1074
18.90%
1084
27.95%
1085
38.25%
409
18.83%
Region 6
985
20.61%
986
36.41%
1009
43.81%
369
18.43%
State
6711
22.32%
6729
33.48%
6778
44.00%
2529
19.34%

26. ISAT Language Results by Region % SLD Students Proficient 2010-11

27. ISAT Mathematics Results by Region % SLD Students Proficient 2010-11

28. ISAT Reading Results by Region % SLD Students Proficient 2010-11

29. ISAT Science Results by Region % SLD Students Proficient 2010-11

30. SLD Identification Rate, 2008-2010 (Idaho and National Data, 3-21)
All Disabilities
Specific Learning Disabilities
Idaho
27,930
8,919
27,787
8,334
27,045
7,604
50 states, D.C., and P.R.
6,593,220
2,536,780
6,608,446
2,497,581
6,552,766
2,422,688
We would like to bring the attention of the stakeholders and others who will be following our progress, the reasons why we need to follow only the progress of students that continue in the system. With the implementation of RTI and other similar initiatives across the state, there may be a reduction on the number of students with SLD. This is also a national trend.

31. SLD Identification Rate, 2008-2010 (Idaho and National Data, 3-21)
1.51%
3.80%
And Idaho is ahead of this curve, with a higher reduction on the identification rate of students with SLD when compared to the national average.

32. SLD Identification Rate, 2008-2010 (School Districts Implementing RTI vs. State)
All Disabilities
SLD
State
27,931
8,920
27,787
8,330
27,388
7,712
RTI 3 Years
(5 school districts)
1,296
479
1,311
465
1,255
406
RTI 2 Years
950
389
921
365
889
328
A possible impact of such reduction might affect the performance of the group of students identified under the SLD classification. As an example, we are showing here three sets of data: one is statewide SLD rates for the last three years in Idaho. The other two sets are of five school districts only, that have been implementing RTI with some level of state assistance, for the last two and three years.

33. SLD Identification Rate, 2008-2010 (School Districts Implementing RTI vs. State)
4.05%
4.61%
3.80%
These two sets of five districts (RTI 3 years and RTI 2 years) have shown a larger decrease in SLD identification rates than the state average in the last years.

34. Performance on ISAT vs. RTI Implementation (SY 2010-11)
ISAT Language
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Null
Total
% Proficient and Advanced
State
2,975
2,219
1,398
100 19
6,711
22.32%
RTI 3 Years
182
119 67 1
370
18.38%
RTI 2 Years
137 91 70 2
301
23.92%
ISAT Mathematics
2,296
2,160
1,899
354 20
6,729
33.48%
133
131 87 -
28.65%
106 88 83 12
290
32.76%
ISAT Reading
1,863
1,912
2,577
405 21
6,778
44.00%
120
117
115
373
36.46% 84
110 9
296
40.20%
ISAT Science
19.34% 60 48 5
18.05% 66 30 14
113
14.16%
This may impact the performance of SLD students as a group. The reasons may be that as districts implement RTI, the reduction of improper referrals

35. ISAT Language

36. ISAT Mathematics

37. ISAT Reading

38. ISAT Science

39. LEA RTI Year 3 & 2 v. 3A and 3C RTI 3rd Year 3A 3C District 1 No Yes
n/a
District 5
RTI 2nd Year
Mix

40. Idaho’s Results Goal
For the past five years, Idaho has stalled or demonstrated slippage in the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments as noted in indicator 3A. Starting from a baseline of 34% on the school year, the percent proficient dropped to 4.62% in 06-07, 14% in 07-08, 18% in 08-09, and back down to 8% in
All stakeholders believe it is important to the future of Idaho that students with disabilities meet the proficiency targets.

41. Idaho Results Goal
Given Students with Disabilities who are identified with a Specific Learning Disability residing in Idaho districts whom have failed to achieve AYP in the subgroup of SWD, districts will increase the academic performance of SWD who have been identified with a Specific Learning Disability, through increased collaborative leadership, focused progress monitoring, targeted interventions, and greater connection of IEP Goals to General Education Standards, to 60% combined proficiency within 5 years.

42. OSEP Results Work Further drill down Focus on one category: SLD
2 years of SLD Implementation Data
Progressive vs. Individual Analysis
Finding where we went off the road
2 main areas arise as sources
Tier 2 Interventions
Progress Monitoring

43. Idaho Results Goal: Next Steps
Need for collaborative approaches
SPED, SSoS, Federal Programs, RTI, working with leadership to give them the support and resources needed.
Tier 2 and Progress Monitoring:
SESTA will focus its SLD TA resources on these 2 areas and work with both national and local experts to inform and equip Idaho districts
Connection of IEP Goals to Standards:
SDE/SESTA will design and implement training.

44. A call to act….
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

45. Contact Information:
Richard Henderson Idaho State Department of Education Division of Federal Programs Division of Special Education (208)