Lone Star State of Mind

1
Lone Star State of Mind

• TCASE Summer Leadership Conference
• July 13, 2004

2
Handouts

• PowerPoint Slides
• OSEP Monitoring Letter and Charts
• Annual Performance Report (APR)
• OSEP GPRA/PART Performance Measures
• Rules Letter
• Selected Monitoring Slides
• Angel G. Final Judgment
• Legislative Interim Charges

3
Lone Star State of Mind

• The Elephants in Our Living Rooms
• General Comments/Update
• Leadership Update (Part 1)
• Rules Overview
• Monitoring Update
• Leadership Update (Part 2)

4
The Elephants in Our Living Rooms

• AYP
• Highly Qualified Teachers

5
General Comments/Update

• TCASE Professional Leadership
• We continue our efforts to rebuild special
  education 40 of 51
• Adding Program Funding Support
• Policies and Administrative Procedures

6
General Comments/Update

• Sunset has posted a TEA questionnaire on their
  website at
• http//www.sunset.state.tx.us/questionform.htm

7
Leadership Update (Part 1)

• Interesting Trends (a little data)
• State Supervision Awareness
• OSEP Monitoring Letter and Charts
• Annual Performance Report (APR)
• OSEP GPRA/PART Performance Measures

8
Number of SWD (3-21)
9
of SWD (3-21) of Total Enrollment
10
Number of Students (3-5)
11
Number of Students (6-21)
12
LD (6-21) 1995-2003
13
OHI (6-21) 1995-2003
14
AU (6-21) 1995-2003
15
State Supervision refers to the states
responsibility to have a system that ensures all
eligible children with disabilities have an
opportunity to receive a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) in the least restrictive
environment (LRE).  This system will identify and
address deficiencies/areas of noncompliance and
ensure correction in a timely manner. 
StateSupervision
16
StateSupervision
Direct Input
17
StateSupervision
Direct Input
Additional Data Info Sources
Agency Monitoring
18
Direct Input
Additional Data Info Sources
Agency Monitoring
19
Leadership Update (Part 1)

• OSEP Monitoring Letter and Charts
• Annual Performance Report (APR)
• OSEP GPRA/PART Performance Measures

20
Rules Overview

• 89.1053 Restraint and Time-out
• 89.1055 Content of the IEP
• 89.1076 Interventions and Sanctions
• 89.1095 Dual Enrollment
• 89.1096 3 - 4 Yr Old Dual Enrollment

21
Performance-Based Monitoring Preview of New
Strategies

• Texas Council of Administrators of Special
  Education
• Summer Leadership Conference
• July 2004

22
Background and Influences on Development of New
Monitoring Strategies
23
New Legislation

• House Bill 3459 (78th Texas Leg., Regular
  Session)
• Establishes limits on agency monitoring, with the
  exception of special education
• Includes new sections on bilingual education
• Emphasizes data integrity
• Includes new responsibility for local boards of
  trustees to ensure school district compliance
  with all applicable requirements of state
  programs

24
New Agency Organization

• Revised alignment of agency functions
• Shift away from process to results (i.e., program
  effectiveness and student performance)
• Strong emphasis on data integrity
• Focus on a coordinated approach to agency
  monitoring
• More creative application of sanctions and
  interventions

25
Other Drivers of Change

• OSEP Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process
• Texas Continuous Improvement Process
• Reflections on Results of Previous Systems
• Focus on Coordinated System of State Supervision

26
2003-2004 A Transition Year of Monitoring

• Transition monitoring activities should be guided
  by
• HB 3459
• Focus on performance-based indicators (PAS/DAS18
  indicators)
• Additional statutory requirements for special
  education
• Limited time for 2003-2004 activities

27
2003-2004 A Transition Year of Monitoring
(continued)

• Minimal interventions for school districts that
  demonstrate strong student performance.
• Other strategies that are more effective and
  cost-efficient than on-site monitoring will be
  used.
• When interventions occur, they should emphasize
  local flexibility and minimize, to the extent
  possible, the burden on school districts.

28
2003-2004 A Transition Year of Monitoring
(continued)

• The selection criteria and interventions used for
  2003-2004 may not be used for 2004-2005, but they
  used the best data and information we had within
  the limited time available.
• What did all of that mean for 2003-2004
  monitoring?

29
Oversight, Sanctions, Interventions
Special Education Monitoring System Transition
Plan 2003-2004
NO
YES
ONGOING
Implementation OK?
Resubmit plan (choose outside support)
NO, 1st Time
Implement CIP Evidence of Change (timely review
and check points)
Self Evaluation (various levels based on data
evaluation)
Evaluation, Findings and CIP submitted to TEA
TEA Desk Review of Self-Evaluation Results, Data,
and Continuous Improvement Plan
Approx. 165Cycle 8 Districts
YES
Plan OK?
YES
Review OK?
NO, 2nd time
NO
Approx.15 other districts w/ risk per DAS
Oversight, Sanctions, Interventions
Focused Self Evaluation
ONGOING
NO
TEA On-Site Review or Contracted On-Site Review
and Resubmit Plan
Plan OK?
Districts w/ substantial or imminent risk
YES
Special Program Compliance Review
Information Collection and Review(TEA data
andLEA submission)
ONGOING
Targeted TEA On-Site Review and Submission of CIP
Future Other Random Data and Self-Eval check
Required level of review varies depending upon
initial data review. Community stakeholders must
be part of self-evaluation team (both required
and recommended team members TBD).
CIP Continuous Improvement Plan
TEA Office of Special Education November 2003
30
Overall Result New Strategies for Monitoring

• Moving away from cyclical, non-integrated,
  on-site monitoring to data-informed, integrated
  monitoring where on-site review is the
  intervention of last resort.
• Moving away from estimating risk to describing
  performance.

31
Overall Result New Strategies for Monitoring

• Moving toward an umbrella evaluation that can
  integrate different agency components
• New state accountability system
• Federal accountability provisions (AYP under
  NCLB)
• New performance-based monitoring system
• School FIRST rating system
• Program and fiscal compliance
• Other financial audits

32
State Evaluation Components
Program Effectiveness Finance Compliance
Program Effectiveness
Auxiliary
Student Performance Data Integrity
Monitoring
Responsibilities
Data analyses
State Accountability Ratings
Federal program fiscal compliance
AYP
PBM
School FIRST ratings
Other financial audits
Interventions Framework
33
Overall Goals

• Achieve an integration of indicators and
  interventions
• Deliver a consistent and coordinated response to
  identified areas of low performance/program
  ineffectiveness in districts/campuses
• Take into account both the extent and the
  duration of a districts area(s) of low
  performance.

34
PBM Planning for 2004-2005

• Performance-based monitoring indicators for the
  following program areas are currently in draft
  form
• Bilingual education
• Special education
• Career and Technology Education
• Title I, Part A (economically disadvantaged)
• Title I, Part C (migrant education)
• Title II (highly qualified)
• Title III (limited English proficient students)
• Title IV, Part A (safe and drug-free schools)

35
A Shift from Process to Results

• PBM indicators will be designed with student
  performance in mind
• Old approach The district administers an
  assessment to identified students. (a yes/no
  verification of process)
• New approach What is the performance of the
  districts students on the assessment? (a
  results-based evaluation)

36
A Shift from Process to Results (cont.)

• Old System forms, checklists, files, class
  schedules/rosters, lesson plans, interviews,
  student lists, record folders, etc.
• New System assessment results, assessment
  participation rates, assessment exemption rates,
  dropout rates, remediation rates, student
  participation in advanced measures, etc.

37
Planning for the Future 2005 and Beyond

• Longitudinal measures of growth and changes from
  year to year are a key priority.
• Cohort analyses
• Impact of other systemic changes
• New state accountability system
• RPTE expansion
• SDAA II
• Perkins and IDEA reauthorizations
• AYP Interpretations
• Changes to data collection processes
• Legislation from a special session or upcoming
  regular session
• Sunset review

38
Planning for the Future 2005 and Beyond (cont.)

• The evolution of the performance-based monitoring
  system also is likely to include
• Revision of existing indicators
• Deletion of indicators that no longer may be
  necessary
• The development of a performance-based monitoring
  system is a dynamic and multi-year process.

39
What is Still to Come We Need Your Input!

• Program and fiscal compliance monitoring
• Data integrity monitoring (e.g., leavers, safe
  schools/DAEPs, assessment absences, etc.)
• Cut points, minimum size criterion, required
  improvement, etc.
• Interventions and sanctions

40
(No Transcript)
41
Proposed 2004-2005 PBM Performance Indicators
for Special Education
42
Draft 2004-2005 PBM Performance Indicators
Special Education

• Identification LEAs identification of students
  with disabilities
• Representation LEAs identification of African
  American students
• Representation LEAs identification of Hispanic
  students
• TAKS Participation LEAs SPED student
  participation in TAKS

43
Draft 2004-2005 PBM Performance Indicators
Special Education

• TAKS Performance LEAs SPED student performance
  on TAKS
• SDAA Participation LEAs student participation
  in SDAA
• ARD Exemption LEAs ARD exemption rate
• SDAA Gap Closure LEAs students taking SDAA at
  a level within two years of assigned grade level

44
Draft 2004-2005 PBM Performance Indicators
Special Education

• Least Restrictive Environment LEAs 3-11 year
  old students with instructional setting codes 40
  (mainstream) or 41 (less than 21 resource
  room/services)
• Least Restrictive Environment LEAs 12-21 year
  old students with instructional setting codes 40
  (mainstream) or 41 (less than 21 resource
  room/services)
• Discipline Disproportionate discretionary DAEP
  placements compared to general education

45
Draft 2004-2005 PBM Performance Indicators
Special Education

• Discipline Disproportionate discretionary
  expulsions compared to general education
• Discipline Disproportionate removals to ISS (in
  school suspension) compared to general education
• Dropout rate LEAs Gr. 7-12 SPED annual dropout
  rate

46
Draft 2004-2005 PBM Performance Indicators
Special Education

• Dismissal and successful return to general
  education LEAs special education population
  dismissed in Grades 2-10 who pass TAKS in year
  after exit
• Graduation methods LEAs SPED students
  receiving recommended or distinguished
  achievement diploma

47
Future Development Potential 2005-2006PBM
Performance Indicator Special Education

• Graduation methods Ratio of 89.1070(b)(1) and
  (2) graduations to (c) or (d) exits

48
Current and Future Activities

• Continued work on 2004-2005 system
• Additional feedback opportunities
• Refine 2003-2004 system features (reflect and
  evaluate)
• Focus on continuous improvement
• Compliance in its proper perspective
• Align with other state supervision components
  (due process, complaints and mediation)
• Continued alignment with other performance-based
  monitoring and accountability activities

49
Leadership Update (Part 2)

• 755 Specifically Required Compliance
  Items
• x 506,771 SWD Served in Texas
• 382,612,105
• x 180 Days
• 68,870,178,900

50
Leadership Update (Part 2)

• Angel G. Final Judgment
• Legislative Interim Charges
• IDEA Reauthorization