Students with Disabilities in the P-16 Framework

1
Students with Disabilities in the P-16 Framework

• Outcomes and Improvement Strategies

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
2
Facing todays 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
3

• GOALS
• Close the great divide in achievement along
  lines of income, race and ethnicity, language and
  disability.
• 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
4
Results for Students with Disabilities
Source Report to the Board of Regents, June 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
5
Were 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
6
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
7
Classification Rate increased slightly but has
been fairly stable for the past few years.
Revised methodology
Final April 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
8
All minorities are over represented in special
education except Asians, who are significantly
underrepresented.
Source 2005-06 BEDS Data and December 1, 2005
PD1/4, Final April 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
9
Compared to rest of State, special education
services in Big Five Cities are much more often
provided in separate classes separate settings
Final June 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
10
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
11
2006 and 2007 English Language Arts
(ELA)Students with Disabilities English Language
LearnersPercentages 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
12
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
13
2006 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by
Need/Resource Categories Percentages of
Students with Disabilities at Levels 3 4

• Except in the Large City Districts, more students
  with disabilities met the standards in 2007.
• Gap Variations among need/resource categories
  were substantial.

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
14
2006 2007 English Language Arts (ELA) by
Need/Resource Categories Percentages of
Students with Disabilities at Level 1

• 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 1.

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
15
2006 2007
MathematicsPercentages of Students with
Disabilities at Levels 3 4

• Performance of students with disabilities meeting
  the Mathematics Standards increased at every
  grade in 2007.
• 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
16
2006 2007 MathematicsPercentages 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
17
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 2007.
• Gap Variations among need/resource categories
  were substantial.

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
18
2006 2007 Mathematics by Need/Resource
Categories Percentages of Students with
Disabilities at Level 1

• 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 1.

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
19
Regents English Examination and Students with
Disabilities

• 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 55-100.

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final
April 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
20
Regents Sequential Mathematics Course I and Math
A Examinations and Students with Disabilities

• 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 55-100.

Beginning in 1999, students take either of the
two math examinations. Sequential Mathematics
Course I examination ended in 2002.
Public Schools-Including Charter Schools, Final
April 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
21
Regents Diplomas Earned by Students with
Disabilities

• Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, more
  than 10 times as many students with disabilities
  are earning Regents diplomas.

Students graduating with Regents diplomas in
2004-05 were required to pass five Regents
examinations compared to eight being required in
previous years.
Public Schools-Including Charter Schools
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
22
High School Outcomes for 2001 and 2002 Total
Cohorts
Student Group Cohort Enrollment Regents/ Local Diploma IEP Diploma Other Still Enrolled Transfer to GED Dropout
2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 4 Years
All Students 214,494 64.2 1.8 18.4 4.8 10.9
Gen.Ed. Students 187,792 68.0 0.0 17.7 4.5 9.7
Students with Disabilities 26,702 37.3 14.4 22.8 6.6 18.9
2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years 2001 Total Cohort After 5 Years
All Students 212,135 72.3 2.4 5.1 1.4 18.9
Gen. Ed. Students 185,854 76.4 0.1 4.7 1.2 17.5
Students with Disabilities 26,281 42.8 18.8 7.3 2.4 28.6
2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years 2002 Total Cohort After 4 Years
All Students 216,910 66.7 2.0 15.8 1.4 14.2
Gen. Ed. Students 189,457 70.9 0.1 14.7 1.3 13.0
Students with Disabilities 27,453 37.5 14.8 23.1 2.6 21.9
Final June 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
23
Outcomes for 2001 Total Cohort of Students with
Disabilities After 5 Years by Need/Resource
Capacity

• 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.

Total State Includes Charter Schools, Final-
April 2007
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
24
Dropping Out Is Not A Sudden Decision And Can Be
Made As Early As 6th 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
25
Two Major Types of Drop Out Risk Factors

• Academic Performance
• Educational Engagement

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
Strategies for Improving Student Performance in
the P-16 Initiative
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
30
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
31
Action 1 Identify Low Performing Schools
Target Improvements

• Set annual State targets for improvement
• Publish performance data
• Hold low-performing schools accountable
• Redirect IDEA funds in low-performing schools

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
32
Action 2Help 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
33
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
34
Contracts for Excellence Require Dedicated
Instructional Time, such as

• 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.

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
35
Action 3Align 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
36
Action 4Increase 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
37
Policy Context for Assessment, Curriculum and
Instruction
SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
38
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

39
Mandated Forms

• 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

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ
40
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

41
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)

42
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 students response to
  intervention used to make educational decisions

43
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 students rate of
  learning and
• parents right to request an evaluation for
  special education

44
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

45
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.

46
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
  students 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.

47
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 students
  performance prior to referral for special
  education

48
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 students 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
49
Key Actions for 2007-08

• 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
50
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
51
References Links

• P-16 Education A Plan for Action
  http//usny.nysed.gov/summit/p-16ed.pdf
• Report to the Board of Regents on Closing the
  Achievement Gap Strategies for Students with
  Disabilities Implemented in 2006-07
  http//www.regents.nysed.gov/2007Meetings/June2007
  /0607emscvesidd4.doc
• Results for Students and Individuals with
  Disabilities in 2005-06 and 2006-07
  http//www.regents.nysed.gov/2007Meetings/June2007
  /0607brd2.doc
• http//www.oms.nysed.gov/press/documents/Spec
  ialEdRepCardSlides-Final2007.ppt
• State Performance Plan and Annual Performance
  Report http//www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/ho
  me.html
• Special Education Policy Guidance, Laws and
  Regulations http//www.vesid.nysed.gov/special
  ed/timely.htm

SCDN, 12/07/07, DVJ