Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Indicator Target

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Indicator Target

Description:

PowerPoint Template - Forms (CDE Intranet) Subject: PowerPoint Template. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Indicator Target


1
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)Indicator
Target
2
Indicator 5a, 5b, and 5c
  • Indicator 5 Percent of children with
  • IEPs aged 6 through 21 served
  • A. Inside the regular class 80 or more of the
    day
  • B. Inside the regular class less than 40 of the
    day and
  • C. In separate schools, residential facilities,
    or homebound/hospital placements.
  • (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

3
Measurement
  • 5a-Percent ( of children with IEPs served
    inside the regular class 80 or more of the day)
    divided by the (total of students aged 6
    through 21 with IEPs) times 100.
  • 5b-Percent ( of children with IEPs served
    inside the regular class less than 40 of the
    day) divided by the (total of students aged 6
    through 21 with IEPs) times 100.

4
Measurement
  • 5c-Percent ( of children with IEPs served in
    separate schools, residential facilities, or
    homebound/hospital placements) divided by the
    (total of students aged 6 through 21 with
    IEPs) times 100.

5
Examining LRE Target
  • Reviewed other states data on LRE
  • Reviewed target achievements of other SPP
    indicators
  • Reviewed the reporting requirements on CASEMIS
    and
  • Reviewed data in categories of high schools,
    elementary, county offices of education, charter
    schools and unified school districts.

6
LRE Data 2006-2011
2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
5a 53 49.5 57 52.3 62 51.6
5b 23 25.6 21 22.6 18 25.5
5c 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.3 4 4.5
7
LRE Data 2006-2011 (cont.)
2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
5a 68 51.4 76 52.5 76 52.3
5b 14 22.7 9 22.4 9 22.1
5c 3.9 4.6 3.8 4.0 3.8 4.2
8
Indicator 5a Target and Actual
9
Indicator 5b Target and Actual
10
Indicator 5c Target and Actual
11
Time in Reg. Ed. 5a 80 5b 40-79 5c lt40 Separate Schools
OHI 8.9 10.1 7.4 5.9
SLD 42.3 62.6 26.6 11.3
Deaf-Blind 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Multi Dis 0.1 0.2 2.1 2.7
Autism 5.5 7.5 17.8 17.3
Tr. Brain Inj 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
12
Time in Reg. Ed. 5a 80 5b 40-79 5c lt40 Separate Schools
I. D. 0.9 4.2 16.9 15.1
H of H 1.4 0.9 1.9 0.8
Deafness 0.2 0.4 1.0 3.6
Sp/L Impair 37.1 8.8 15.4 3.7
Visual Impair 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.2
E.D. 2.0 3.5 5.4 31.5
Ortho Impair 0.9 1.1 4.1 6.4
13
Special Education StudentsELA Proficiency 2011
(DRAFT)
lt40 40-79 80 Separate School Total
Far Below Basic 6 7.62 10.17 0.97 24.76
Below Basic 5.09 6.81 13.42 0.59 25.91
Proficient 2.93 2.22 9.19 0.48 14.82
Advanced 3.02 1.43 5.76 0.5 10.71
Did not attempt 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.07 0.5
Total 20.44 22.62 53.8 3.15 100
14
CA Statewide AYP
2010-11 2010-11 2011-12 2011-12
Target CA Actual Target CA Actual
ELA All Students 67.0 56.3 78.0 58.5
ELA SWD 34.6 36.6
Gap 21.7 21.9
Math All Students 67.3 58.1 78.2 59.5
Math SWD 35.7 37.2
Gap 22.4 22.3
15
CA LRE Targets
2010-11 2011-12
Total of LEAs in dataset 1023 895
of LEAs who met all 3 targets 222 86
of LEAs who did not meet any of the 3 targets 110 158
of LEAs who met all 3 LRE targets and are at state AYP for achievement (ELA Math) for SWD 77 28
of LEAs who did not meet any of the 3 LRE targets and did not meet the achievement targets for SWD 107 120
16
LRE Data Trends 2011
CA Target CA Actual New York Target New York Actual Texas Target Texas Actual
5a 80 76 52.3 57 56.9 68 51.6
5b lt40 9 22.1 22 22 10 22.5
5c Separate Schools 3.8 4.2 6 6.4 1 4.5
Florida Target Florida Actual Ohio Target Ohio Actual Illinois Target Illinois Actual
5a 80 70 69.3 76 52.5 76 52.3
5b lt40 14 13.9 9 22.4 9 22.1
5c Separate Schools 3 3.0 3.8 4.0 3.8 4.2
17
Trends from CAs High Percentage Districts
  • Emphasis on inclusion and access to the core
    curriculum
  • Culture and practices that support high standards
    and student achievement
  • Unified practice supported by targeted
    professional development

18
Trends from CAs High Percentage Districts
(contd)
  • Effective leadership
  • Collaboration between special and general
    education teachers
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)