ROUNDUP at the IDEA CORRAL

1
ROUNDUP at the IDEA CORRAL
WELCOME!
WELCOME!
2
(No Transcript)
3
ROUNDUP at the IDEA CORRAL
Bambi Lockman, Chief Bureau of Exceptional
Education and Student Services September 19, 2007
4
Topics

• NCLB Legislation
• General Supervision Implications for States
• Updates

5

• NCLB
• Legislation

6
Issues

• Multiple new requirements
• Insufficient funding
• Lacks understanding regarding the range of
  disabilities
• Lacks acknowledgement of small/rural districts
• Lacks recognition of professional development
  needs
• Response to Intervention
• Positive Behavior Support

7
Issues

• Accountability for students with disabilities
  within the growth model
• Inconsistent alignment with IDEA
• Proposed scope of data system is challenging
• http//www.house.gov/ed_workforce/bills/MillerMcKe
  onNCLBDiscussionDraft.pdf

8
General Supervision Developing an Effective
System Implications for States
9
Components of General Supervision
Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation
State Performance Plan
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Data on Processes and Results
Fiscal Management
Improvement, Correction, Incentives Sanctions
Targeted Technical Assistance Professional
Development
Effective Dispute Resolution
10
Integrated System of General Supervision

• OSEP first presented concept at 2004 National
  Accountability Conference Revisited at NAC 2006
• OSEP/RRC/NECTAC Planning Meeting November 2006
• NCSEAM draft Developing and Implementing an
  Effective System of General Supervision, Fall
  2006
• Kansas City meeting, December 2006

11
The components

• Each of the Big 8 is required by IDEA, GEPA, etc.
• Most states have established independent
  components
• States typically develop their own models for
  meeting general supervision requirements

12
Why an Integrated System?

• General Supervision system must be accountable
  for
• improving educational results and functional
  outcomes
• ensuring that public agencies meet program
  requirements

13
Why an Integrated System?

• To be effective, components must
• connect
• interact
• articulate
• inform each other

14
Describing a System of General Supervision

• Problems in Description (beginning list)
• Equating general supervision as only onsite
  monitoring
• Viewing administration as a collection of
  separate and isolated functions
• Defining accountability as an event rather than a
  state and process
• Others?

15
Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation
State Performance Plan
What is System ?
Data on Processes and Results
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Fiscal Manage-ment
Effective Dispute Resolution
Improvement, Correction, Incentives Sanctions
Targeted T/A Professional Development
16
Integration of Big 8 Components

• State Performance Plan (SPP)
• Policies, Procedures, and Effective
  Implementation
• Data on Processes and Results
• Targeted Technical Assistance and Professional
  Development
• Effective Dispute Resolution
• Integrated Monitoring Activities
• Improvement, Correction, Incentives and Sanctions
• Fiscal Management

17
State Performance Plan

• Stakeholders should be actively involved in all
  aspects of the SPP
• The development and implementation of the SPP
  leads to improved results
• Reporting is critical to ensuring accountability
  to the public
• The SPP is the blueprint for systems change

State Performance Plan
18

• SPP/APR

19
SPP/APR

• Each state must develop a six-year plan for
  improvement that addresses 20 indicators defined
  by OSEP
• Each state must report annually on performance
  relative to targets that were set
• Each state must report annually on LEA
  performance relative to targets

20
SPP/APR

• Performance Indicators
• Graduation Rate
• Dropout Rate
• Assessment Participation and Performance
• Discipline
• LRE, 6-21

21
SPP/APR

• Performance Indicators
• 6. LRE, 3-5
• 7. Preschool Outcomes
• 8. Parent Involvement
• 14. Post-school Outcomes

22
SPP/APR

• Compliance Indicators
• 9. Disproportionality
• 10. Disproportionality
• 11. 60-day evaluation timeline
• 12. Part C to Part B Transition
• 13. Transition IEP
• 15. Correction of noncompliance within one
• year
• 20. Timely and accurate data

23
SPP/APR

• State Level Indicators
• 16. Complaints resolved w/in 60 days
• 17. Due process hearing requests adjudicated
  within 45 days
• 18. Hearing requests resolved through
  settlement agreements
• 19. Mediations resulting in mediation
  agreements

24
Indicator 4 Discipline

• Risk (by race) of suspension/ expulsion of
  greater than 10 days for SWD compared to
  nondisabled students
• White 1.01
• Black 1.11
• Hispanic 0.85
• Asian/Pacific Islander 0.32
• Am In/Alaskan Native 1.12

Source Survey 5, 2005-06
25
Indicator 6 Potential Change

• Current Indicator
• Children who receive special education and
  related services in settings with typically
  developing peers

26
Indicator 6 Potential Change

• Proposed Indicator
• Children attending a regular early childhood
  program
• Not attending a regular childhood program or
  kindergarten and attending a special education
  program
• Not attending a regular early childhood program
  or kindergarten and not attending a special
  education program

27
Indicator 6

• If adopted, new indicator would be reflected in
  APR submitted in February 08
• Bureau submitted comments to OSEP with our
  concerns which include
• Focus on where children are rather than where
  special education is provided
• Requirement to obtain information from parents on
  attendance in early childhood programs unrelated
  to FAPE
• New baseline and targets will be established
  using 07-08 data for reporting in 2/1/09 APR

28
Indicator 6

• Data Collection As it stands now!
• Use October Survey
• You report on participation in
• Early childhood settings (must include 50
  typically developing) (Code K)
• Special education program (Code L)
• Special education in a separate school (Code S)
• Home (Code A) may include children who receive
  services at home and at service provider (Code J)
• Service provider not participating in K, L,
  S, A - receive services in a clinic or school
  setting (Code J)
• Residential (B)

29
Indicator 6

• Data Collection - Proposed
• OSEP is proposing changes to data collection
  table for preschool environments
• Proposal establishes 2-tier definition of early
  childhood environment
• Early childhood programs where at least 70 are
  typically developing
• Early childhood programs where at least 50-60
  are typically developing
• Comment by October 15 for more information
  http//edicsweb.ed.gov/

30
Indicator 7 Measuring Child Outcomes

• Key design elements
• Birth to Five design with our partners at Early
  Steps
• Phasing-in using a single instrument
• Collecting two data points (entry and exit)
• Shared data point for those children
  transitioning from Early Steps
• Have been working with 10 Early Adopters during
  first phase of development/implementation

31
Indicator 7 A Big Thanks To Our Early Adopters

• Alachua
• Brevard
• Broward
• Escambia
• Gilchrist
• Levy
• Marion
• Miami Dade
• Orange
• Palm Beach

32
Indicator 8 Parent Involvement

• 2006-07 Response Rate
• Preschool 15.4
• K-12 8.4
• 2006-07 Percent At or Above Standard
• Preschool 44
• K-12 29

33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
Indicator 9 - Disproportionate Representation

• 2005-06 School Year
• Indicator 9 Target Risk Ratio gt2.0 for all
  students with disabilities
• One district identified (African American
  students)
• DOE Desk review of eligibility records of newly
  placed (within last two years) students
• FINDINGS
• Disproportionate representation not a result of
  inappropriate identification practices

38
Indicator 9 - Disproportionate Representation

• 2006-07 School Year
• Review of October 2006 data
• Using Risk Ratio gt2.0
• One district identified
• Plan
• District will be asked to collect child study
  team (CST) data
• District collects and analyzes data Fall 2007
• Provide summary in January for further analysis

39
Indicator 10 - Disproportionate Representation

• 2005-06 School Year
• Indicator 10 Target Risk Ratio gt2.0 for African
  American, MH EH programs
• 34 districts identified
• DOE Desk review of eligibility records of newly
  placed (within last two years) students
• FINDINGS
• One district noncompliant with record submission
• Systemic concerns statewide

40
Indicator 10 - Disproportionate Representation

• 2006-07 School Year
• July 2007 OSEP report
• Consider ALL exceptionalities ALL ethnicities
• Consider all students, not just those newly
  identified (within last two school years)
• Review of October 2006 data
• Using Risk Ratio gt2.0
• 62 districts and one lab school identified

41
Indicator 10 - Disproportionate Representation

• Districts will be asked to collect child study
  team (CST) data
• Plan
• Districts collect and analyze data Fall 2007
• Provide summary in January for further analysis

42
Disproportionality

• States are required to analyze their data based
  on the child count submitted to OSEP (October
  survey data)
• Florida has received approval to use students
  newly placed within a school year to target
  districts
• We have used survey 5 for this purpose but are
  reconsidering to make the results of the analysis
  more timely for districts

43
Risk Ratios for Newly Placed Students

• Risk that students of a given race will be newly
  identified as disabled when compared to students
  of all other races
• White 1.20
• Black 0.91
• Hispanic 0.90
• Asian/Pacific Islander 0.58
• Am In/Alaskan Native 1.15

Source Survey 5, 2005-06
44
Disproportionality

• OSEP wants states to review under representation
  of racial/ethnic groups.
• Discussion with OSEP resulted in two outcomes
• We must do the analysis and report the results at
  the state level
• It is legitimate to argue that these students do
  not need special education and related services
  as they are achieving at grade level

45
Indicator 12 -Transition Part C to Part B

• 100 compliance indicator
• Verification of data activity completed
• by 32 districts below 25 compliance
• Verification of data activity for all
• districts in the fall

46
Indicator 12 -Transition Part C to Part B

• Technical Assistance Paper (TAP) on Transition
• Developed jointly with Early Steps
• Currently in final review

47
Summary of Proposed Changes to SPP/APR

• Posted in Federal Register
• Comment period ended September 17
• Most of the changes involve expanded language to
  clarify what is required
• For some indicators there are changes that will
  result in changes to baselines and targets

48
Summary of Proposed Changes to SPP/APR

• Graduation Rate (1) - removal of language
  comparing SWD to all students
• Dropout Rate (2) - removal of language comparing
  SWD to all students
• Assessment (3) addition of participation and
  performance on modified assessments
• Suspension/Expulsion (4) - removes indicator

49
Summary of Proposed Changes to SPP/APR

• LRE, 6-21 (5) - no substantive changes
• LRE, 3-5 (6) - no substantive changes for
  2007-08, proposed changes for 2008-09
• Preschool Outcomes (7) - extends timeline for
  full implementation to 2009
• Family Involvement (8) - no substantive changes

50
Summary of Proposed Changes to SPP/APR

• Disproportionality (9 and 10) - no substantive
  changes
• Evaluation timeline (11) - reworded but no
  substantive changes
• Part C-B Transition (12) - no substantive changes
• Transition IEP (13) - no substantive changes

51
Summary of Proposed Changes to SPP/APR

• Post-school Outcomes (14) - no substantive
  changes
• Timely and Accurate Data (20) - no substantive
  changes
• Correction of Noncompliance (15) - no substantive
  changes

52
Summary of Proposed Changes to SPP/APR

• Complaint timeline (16) - reworded but no
  substantive changes
• Due Process timeline (17) - no substantive
  changes
• Early Resolution (18) - no substantive changes
• Mediation (19) - no substantive changes

53
Policies, Procedures Effective Implementation

• Aligned with IDEA
• Implemented by local programs
• Methods to detect noncompliance and ensure
  correction of noncompliance
• Program improvement through improvement planning
  and incentives

Policies, Procedures Effective Implementation
54
Policies, Procedures Effective Implementation

• Current interagency agreements and memoranda of
  understanding (MOU) when required to ensure IDEA
  implementation
• Mechanisms to determine effectiveness of
  agreements and MOU

Policies, Procedures Effective Implementation
55

• General Supervision Rules

56
General Supervision Rules

• Section 608, 20 USC 1407
• Rulemaking.Each State that receives funds under
  this title shall
• (1) ensure that any State rules, regulations,
  and policies relating to this title conform to
  the purposes of this title
• (2) identify in writing to local educational
  agencies located in the State and the Secretary
  any such rule, regulation, or policy as a
  State-imposed requirement that is not required by
  this title and Federal regulations and

57
General Supervision Rules

• Section 608, 20 USC 1407
• (3) minimize the number of rules, regulations,
  and policies to which the local educational
  agencies and schools located in the State are
  subject under this title

58
General Supervision Rules

• The following rules will be addressed through
  the rulemaking process
• 6A-6.03028 Development of Individual
  Educational Plans for Students with
  Disabilities
• 6A-6.030281 Development of Service Plans for
  Students with Disabilities Enrolled in
  Private School by Their Parents and
  Provided with Specially Designed
  Instruction and Related Services by the
  Local School Board
• 6A-6.0311 Eligible Special Programs for
  Exceptional Students

59
General Supervision Rules

• 6A-6.0331 Identification and Determination of
  Eligibility of Exceptional Students for
  Specially Designed Instruction
• 6A-6.03311 Procedural Safeguards for Students
  with Disabilities
• 6A-6.03312 Discipline Procedures for Students
  with Disabilities
• 6A-6.03314 Procedural Safeguards for Students
  with Disabilities Enrolled in Private
  Schools by Their Parents

60
General Supervision Rules

• 6A-6.0333 Surrogate Parents
• 6A-6.0334 Temporary Assignment of Transferring
  Exceptional Students
• 6A-6.03411 Policies and Procedures for the
  Provision of Specially Designed
  Instruction and Related Services for
  Exceptional Students

61
General Supervision Rules

• Rulemaking Process Summary
• Review by DOE policy committee
• Notice of rule development published in the
  Florida Administrative Weekly
• Advertise public hearings
• Receive and consider comments from the public
  make changes as appropriate
• Re-advertise in Florida Administrative Weekly
• Present to SBE for approval

62

• Program Rules

63
Program Rules

• Group A
• Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities, Autism
  Spectrum Disorder, Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing,
  Orthopedic and Other Health Impairments Traumatic
  Brain Injury
• Revisions in effect as of July 1, 2007
• Rules, Webcast, and FAQs are available on
  Bureaus Web site http//www.fldoe.org/ese/

64
Program Rules

• Revisions to general supervision rules will
  require revision to Group A rules (e.g. updated
  cross references)
• Anticipate including evaluation procedures
  currently in SPP back into Group A rules

65
Program Rules

• Group B
• Visually Impaired and Mentally Handicapped
• Bureau final review complete
• Move forward through Departmental process and
  scheduling Board adoption

66
Program Rules

• Group C - Specific Learning Disabilities and
  Speech/Language Impaired
• Rule development workshops completed
• We continue to work on content and internal
  reviews
• Next step regional hearings

67
Program Rules

• Group C - Specific Learning Disabilities and
  Speech/Language Impaired
• Variety of stakeholders and experts participated
  in workgroups
• Two separate workgroups groups and staff
  communicated on a regular basis to align some
  procedures
• Recommendations from workgroup were made on the
  basis of evidence-based practices and current
  trends

68
Program Rules

• Additional Rules for Revision
• Anticipate revisions to rules related to FCAT
  waiver, statewide assessment, special exemptions
  from graduation test, graduation requirements for
  students seeking special diploma
• Delete old references
• Update/correct terminology
• Clarify requirements

69
Programs for Students with Speech and Language
Impairments

• Change In Eligibility Criteria
• July 25, 2003 Memo
• Districts varied in interpretation of more than
  1 SD below the mean ? some districts using 1 SD
  others using 2 SD
• Memo directed districts to use 1 ½ SD to
  determine eligibility for a language disorder for
  children ages 5

70
Programs for Students with Speech and Language
Impairments

• June 22, 2007
• Complaint filed DOE acted beyond scope of
  authority in interpreting SBE rule and including
  1 ½ SD in SPP
• DOE determined that guidance was incorrect and
  had acted beyond scope of authority

71
Programs for Students with Speech and Language
Impairments

• New Guidance
• By September 28, 2007 districts must
• cease the use of one and one half standard
  deviations below the mean when determining
  eligibility for a language disorder for children
  ages five and above and
• begin determining eligibility for this population
  using more than one standard deviation
• Amendment of SPP provided

72
Data on Processes Results

• Collection and verification
• 618
• Dispute resolution
• Previous monitoring reports
• other
• Examination and analyses
• Areas of state concern
• Clusters of related indicators
• Reporting
• APR (state)
• LEA Performance compare to state targets
• Status determination
• Improvement
• Data are used to plan and revise activities

Data on Processes Results
73

• Data

74
Students with Disabilities, 2006-07
Source Survey 2, 2006-07
75
Students with Disabilities Percent of Total
Population
Source Survey 2, 2006-07
76
Growth Rates, Students with Disabilities2000
through 2006
77
NCLB Graduation Rate
Source Education Information and Accountability
Systems
78
Standard Diploma Rate, SWD
Source Survey 5, 2003-04 through 2005-06
79
Dropout Rate
Source Survey 5, 2003-04 through 2005-06
80
FCAT Reading Participation and Performanceby
Grade Groups2005-07
81
FCAT MathParticipation and Performanceby Grade
Groups2005-07
82
(No Transcript)
83
Postschool Outcomes
84
Placement Settings, Ages 3-5
85
Placement Settings, Ages 6-21
Source Survey 9, 2004-05 and 2005-06 Survey 2,
2006-07.
86
Integrated Monitoring Activities

• Stakeholders involved
• Focus on specific hypotheses for area
• Teams include family members
• Investigation related to noncompliance and
  program improvement
• Multiple methods and data sources to monitor
  every program, every year
• Activities include continuous examination of
  performance for compliance and results
• Written reports specify evidence of correction
  and of improvement
• Internal and external technical assistance and
  professional development support improvement and
  correction

Integrated Monitoring Activities
87

• Integrated
• Monitoring
• System

88
Integrated System

• One piece of the puzzle
• Monitoring decisions informed by district data
  SPP indicator groups dispute resolution
• Monitoring data used to inform activities
  required by SPP indicator groups
• Monitoring used as a tool for verification of
  district action plans

89
Floridas Monitoring 2007-08

• Primary Components
• Targeted or Basic self-assessment
• Implement corrective actions
• Bureau validation of results
• Was the standard applied as intended?
• Bureau verification of correction of
  noncompliance
• Was there timely correction of noncompliance?
• Final report
• Selected site visits

90
Self-Assessment

• Web-Based System
• ALL districts will participate!
• All means all - lab schools, FSDB, DOC
• Web-based record reviews
• Results reported via the website
• Preliminary report available as soon as district
  submits results

91
Targeted Self-Assessment

• Based on OSEPs list of regulatory requirements
  aligned to indicators
• Includes Florida-specific requirements (e.g.,
  transition)

92
Targeted Self-Assessment

• District Selection
• Districts currently participating in required SPP
  Indicator group activities for
• SPP 2 Dropout
• SPP 3 Assessment
• SPP 5 LRE ages 6-21
• SPP 6 LRE ages 3-5
• SPP 12 C to B Transition
• No district will be required to conducted
  targeted self-assessment on more than three
  indicators

93
Basic Self-Assessment

• Addresses procedural compliance unrelated to the
  indicators
• Based on the Bureaus Compliance Manual
• IEPs, matrix of services, discipline,
  eligibility, etc
• Includes requirements related to new rules
  effective July 1, 2007
• District Selection
• Any district thats not targeted!

94
Process

• Sampling plan
• Bureau identifies schools from which records are
  sampled
• All means all charter, DJJ, center schools
• Number of records based on district size and
  number of students with disabilities
• Type and distribution of records based on
  indicator

95
Process

• Conduct self-assessment, October December 2007
• Submit results via website
• Implement corrective actions as soon as possible
• Selected districts submit records for validation,
  Winter 2007-08
• All districts submit documentation of correction,
  Spring 2008 (or TBD with Bureau)

96
Findings of Noncompliance

• Findings of noncompliance will be identified as -
  
• Student-specific to be corrected as soon as
  possible (e.g., reconvene IEP)
• Student-specific not able to correct (e.g.,
  missed deadline)
• Systemic 25 of records noncompliant on that
  standard

97
Findings of Noncompliance

• Correction as soon as possible (30-60 days)
  required for any student-specific findings -
• That are correctable
• Including those found to be systemic

98
Corrective Action Plans (CAP)

• Correction within a year required for -
• Student-specific not able to correct
• Systemic 25 of records noncompliant on that
  item
• CAPs integrated into existing action plans
  implemented through SPP indicator groups, as
  appropriate

99
Web-Based Self-Assessment

• Benefits to District
• Self-checking
• Wont allow incomplete submissions
• Wont allow incongruent responses
• Allows for multiple users simultaneously
• Single authorized submission allows for district
  oversight/control
• Provides automatic feedback on corrective action
  required

100
Web-Based Self-Assessment

• Benefits to State
• Consolidates data for easy retrieval and analysis
• Facilitates timely response to districts
• Facilitates timely and accurate reporting
  (SPP/APR)

101
Integrated System

• Web site??? Stay tuned
• Conference calls will be scheduled prior to
  rollout

102
Effective Dispute Resolutions

• Are timely
• Track issues
• Inform onsite and offsite monitoring activities
• Periodically evaluate effectiveness of
  resolutions
• Determine that parents and families and students
  understand their rights, especially in cases
  where there are few or no complaints, hearings,
  or other resolutions

Effective Dispute Resolution
103

• Dispute
• Resolution

104
Data

• Mediations requested 186
• Mediations completed 91
• Complaints files 97
• Complaints ordered 56
• Due process requests 189
• Due process adjudicated 10
• Parent calls documented 1301

105
Dispute Resolution

• Districts should provide the Bureau with at least
  two contacts in order to address
• Complaints in a timely manner
• Requests for mediation
• Parent concerns received by the Bureau

106
Dispute Resolution Complaint Documentation

• Helpful organization tips
• Binders with labeled tabs for each complaint
  issue
• Highlighting and/or explaining how the
  documentation verifies the districts position
• Explaining why any requested documents were not
  provided

107
Dispute Resolution Complaint Documentation

• Corrective action
• Noncompliance must be corrected as soon as
  possible, but in no case more than one year from
  the date the complaint was ordered. Specific
  dates may be set by the Bureau.
• Complete required activities and submit
  documentation within the timelines provided in
  the final report.

108
Dispute ResolutionDue Process Hearing Requests

• Follow federal requirements related to resolution
  sessions
• Promptly submit the Bureaus Report of Due
  Process Resolution Session document for each due
  process hearing request
• As possible, please work toward timely completion
  of the hearing process

109
Dispute ResolutionModel Forms

• Forms are available from the Bureau for
• Mediation requests
• State complaints
• Due process hearing requests
• For more information, call Trish Howell at (850)
  245-0476

110
Improvement, Correction, Incentives Sanctions

• Explicit state authority to enforce regulations,
  policies, and procedures
• TA to ensure correction of noncompliance
• Improvement planning to meet targets
• Corrective action planning and follow-up tracking
  of correction and improvement
• Range of formalized strategies and/or sanctions
  for enforcement with written timelines
• Determines the status of local programs annually

Improvement Correction, Incentives Sanctions
111

• Determinations

112
SEA Determinations

• Each state receives an annual determination
• Meets requirements of IDEA
• Needs assistance to meet requirements
• Needs intervention to meet requirements
• Needs substantial intervention to meet
  requirements

113
2007 SEA Determinations

• Based on information submitted in the APR for
  2005-06 and other considerations
• Nine states met requirements
• 41 states need assistance
• Florida needs assistance based on
• Part C to Part B transition
• Timely and accurate data
• Special conditions

114
2007 LEA Determinations

• Each district receives an annual determination
• Meets requirements of IDEA
• Needs assistance to meet requirements
• Needs intervention to meet requirements
• Needs substantial intervention to meet
  requirements

115
2007 LEA Determinations

• 24 met requirements
• 43 need assistance
• Based on one or more of the following
• Part C to Part B transition
• Timely and accurate data
• Correction of noncompliance within one year
• Auditor general findings

116
2008 Determinations

• LEA determinations will be based on
• C to B Transition
• Timely and Accurate Data
• Correction of Noncompliance within one year
• Disproportionality
• Evaluation Timelines
• Transition IEP
• Details to be developed

117
Seamless System

• Integrated improvement planning tool (2008-09)
• Components
• Improvement planning for performance indicators
• Correction of non-compliance for compliance
  indicators

118
Targeted Technical Assistance Professional
Development

• Directly connected to the SPP and improvement
  activities
• Provided to correct noncompliance and improve
  results
• Principles of adult learning
• Measure effectiveness of implementation
• Incorporate various agencies in development and
  dissemination
• Distribute promising practices and evidence based
  practices to local programs

Targeted T/A Prof Dev
119

• Problem-
• Solving/
• RtI Project

120
Statewide Problem-Solving/Response to
Intervention Project

• Two Primary Goals
• Training and Dissemination
• Program Evaluation of Impact
• Two Initiatives
• Statewide Training and Technical Assistance
• Pilot Schools/Demonstration Districts for Program
  Evaluation
• Multi-Year Training Schedule

121
Project Leadership
Co-Directors George Batsche - Batsche_at_tempest.coed
u.usf.edu Michael Curtis - Curtis_at_tempest.coedu.us
f.edu Project Leader Clark Dorman -
Dorman_at_coedu.usf.edu Regional Coordinators
/Trainers Beth Hardcastle - North -
Hardcast_at_coedu.usf.edu Denise Bishop - Central -
Bishop_at_tempest.coedu.usf.edu Kelly Justice -
South - Justice_at_coedu.usf.edu
122
Project Status

• Demonstration districts and pilot schools
  selected through statewide mini-grant process
• 8 districts
• 40 pilot schools
• 38 comparison schools

123
(No Transcript)
124
Project Status

• Pilot schools/demonstration districts
• Coaches hired
• Initial coach training completed
• Pilot school/district training initiated
• Program evaluation model and tools completed
• Statewide training
• District contacts selected
• Fall, 2007 training dates TBA
• Web site www.floridarti.usf.edu

125
(No Transcript)
126
Year One Activities

• Five days of training (pilot and statewide)
• 2 days/1 day/1/day/1 day format
• Multiple training sites in each region
• Technical assistance sessions
• Web-based and Interactive CD-ROM support for
  skill practice and improvement

127
Year One Activities

• Blueprints of procedures/policy manuals for
  districts
• Statewide Webcasts
• Evaluation of Year One activities
• Newsletter

128
Content of Year 1 Training

• Problem-Solving steps and procedures
• Data collection, organization, decision-making
• Interventions Tier 1 and Tier 2
• Academic and behavior applications
• Early intervention
• Disproportionality

129

• SecondaryTransition

130
Taxonomy for Transition Programming
Family Involvement
Student-Focused Planning
Student Development
Program Structures
Interagency Collaboration
131
Taxonomy for Transition Programming
Family Involvement Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14
Student-Focused Planning Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14
Student Development Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14
Program Structures Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14
Interagency Collaboration Indicators 13 and 14
132
Whats Happening Now

• Collaboration at the local, state and national
  levels (Interagency and Intra-agency Teams,
  National Governors Association, interagency
  projects such as
• Third Party Cooperative Agreements TCPA
• Discretionary projects with focus on transition
• Career Development and Transition (CDT) Project
  at The Transition Center
• Transition to Independence Process (TIP) Project

133
Floridas Direction

• Development of a comprehensive system built
  within a national framework for defining
  transition, evaluating programs and processes,
  and identifying supports and resources
• Alignment of and coordination among key
  transition initiatives and state and federal
  requirements
• Attainment of better school and post-school
  outcomes for all students with disabilities

134

• Residential
• Services

135
Residential Services

• SEA is responsible for ensuring that each
  eligible child is provided a free appropriate
  public education (FAPE)
• FAPE is provided by the LEA
• If there is a question regarding which LEA is
  responsible for the cost of a placement, the SEA
  is responsible for ensuring that the issue is
  resolved

136
Residential Services

• The school district (LEA) responsible for the
  payment of educational expenses of a child under
  the IDEA is the district in which the child
  resides (34 CFR s. 300.201)
• The term residence in this context, means
  legal residence or domicile
• A childs legal residence is the legal residence
  or domicile of the childs parents

137
Residential Services

• The interpretation given by the responsible
  federal agency is also the rule that is applied
  to questions of residency as applied in other
  areas of Florida law.
• Questions involving university tuition,
  assignment to public schools, voter registration,
  and required residence districts for public
  officers all apply the concept of legal residence
  or domicile for determining a persons residence.
• A person may have several temporary residences,
  however, a person can only have one legal
  residence.

138

• Parentally
• Placed Private
• School
• Students

139
Parentally Placed Private School Students

• Equitable Services and Use of Funds
• May Part B funds for equitable services be paid
  directly to a private school?
• No. The LEA must administer those funds and
  maintain title to any equipment, materials, or
  property purchased with those funds.
• 34 CFR 300.141(a)

140
Parentally Placed PrivateSchool Students

• Data Collection and Reporting
• Each LEA must maintain in its records and provide
  to the state
• the number of students evaluated
• the number of students determined to be students
  with disabilities
• the number of students served, however
• Only those students receiving services should be
  reported through the automated student database
• 34 CFR 300.132(c)

141
Parentally Placed Private School Students

• Reevaluation Scenario 1
• Parent does not respond to districts attempts to
  obtain consent for formal assessment as part of a
  reevaluation
• The district is not required to consider the
  student as eligible for services as a parentally
  placed private school student with a disability,
  however
• The district must document its attempts to obtain
  that consent
• 34 CFR 300.300(d)(4)-(5)

142
Parentally Placed Private School Students

• Reevaluation Scenario 2
• The reevaluation takes place and the team
  determines that a parentally placed private
  school student is no longer eligible as a student
  with a disability
• If the students meets the dismissal criteria
  according to his/her ESE program, then the
  student would be dismissed and no longer
  considered eligible as a parentally placed
  private school student
• 34 CFR 300.305(e)(1)

143

• Certification, HQT
• Personnel
• Development

144
Highly Qualified ESE Teachers

• To be in-field for ESE courses taught, must have
• Appropriate certification in exceptionality
  taught, according to the Course Code Directory
• and
• If primary instructor with more than 50 of
  students identified in specific exceptionality
  (does not apply to prekindergarten disabilities),
  must have appropriate ESE endorsement

145
Highly Qualified ESE Teachers

• Effective dates
• Orientation Mobility - 7/1/07
• Autism 7/1/11
• Severe Profound 7/1/11
• PreK Disabilities 7/1/11

146
Highly Qualified ESE Teachers

• In addition to in-field, must be HQT for core
  academic subject taught (according to NCLB). Must
  have all three requirements
• 1. An acceptable bachelors or higher degree
• State licensure/certification
• Demonstration of subject competency for the
  subject(s) and grade level(s) taught
• Appropriate subject area certification
• Passing score on appropriate subject area test
• Experienced teacher completed HOUSSE plan by the
  end of the 2006-07 school year

147
Highly Qualified ESE Teachers

• Special Note for Use of High Objective Uniform
  State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) Plans
• Existing HOUSSE plans remain valid, are
  transferable from district to district and from
  state to state
• New HOUSSE plans can no longer be completed
  except for new special education teachers
  teaching multiple subjects who were highly
  qualified in math, science, or language arts at
  the time of hire

148
Highly Qualified ESE Teachers

• HQ Elementary ESE Teachers
• All ESE teachers who are the teacher of record
  and teach an elementary core academic subject
  must meet the HQT requirements
• HQ Secondary ESE Teachers
• Middle grades integrated curriculum certification
  satisfies HQT requirements for some secondary ESE
  teachers (if appropriate according to the Course
  Code Directory for the specific course taught)

149
HQ ESE Teachers of Students with Significant
Cognitive Impairments

• ESE teacher is required to meet
• highly qualified requirement for elementary
  teachers or
• core academic subject areas appropriate for the
  level of instruction provided
• and
• the appropriate certification in ESE to match the
  ESE table in the Course Code Directory

150
Highly Qualified Resultsfor ESE Core Courses
151
Current HQT Activities

• Personnel Development Partnerships
• Nine public universities - UWF, FSU, UNF, UCF,
  UF, USF, FAU, FIU, FGCU
• Funded through
• Personnel Development Partnerships (PDP),
• IDEA, Part B
• State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG),
• IDEA, Part D
• PDP Coordinators
• Liaisons between BEESS and university and
  colleges special education departments

152
Test Preparation

• Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum
• Online Content Review Module http//fdlrshrd.nefe
  c.org/ic/index.aspx
• Elementary K-6 Online Content Review Module
  http//fdlrshrd.nefec.org/elemk6/index.aspx
• Tutoring assistance for those preparing to take
  the Content Certification Exams (PDP/SPDG)
• Reimbursement for successful completion of the
  Content Certification Exams (PDP/SPDG)

153
ESE EndorsementsVirtual ESE Online Program

• A collaborative effort among universities in
  Florida to provide courses that lead to an
  endorsement in PreK disabilities, autism, and
  severe and profound through an online delivery
  system
• Four courses will be offered each semester so
  that teachers will complete the coursework for
  their endorsements in one year (http//virtualese.
  nefec.org)

154
Financial Assistance for HQT

• ESE teachers to obtain an ESE endorsement
• ESE teachers to obtain a Reading Endorsement
• Students to obtain Special Education degree
• Students to obtain a Masters degree in
  Speech-Language Pathology
• Students to become Teachers of the Deaf and
  Hard-of-Hearing
• Paraprofessionals to obtain a Bachelors degree
  with ESE certification
• For more information contact regional PDP/SPDG
  Coordinator

155
Building University Partnerships

• University PDP Roundtable Meeting
• To identify the current needs for producing
  highly qualified special education teacher and
  develop an action plan
• University Special Education Department Meetings
• To update faculty on special education
  initiatives in Florida
• Personnel Development Partnerships Showcase
• To share current grant activities in the regions

156
NEWRegional Personnel Development
Alliance-established to achieve a common goal
that is beyond the capabilities of a single
project
157
Regional Personnel Development Alliance

• Purposes
• Provide one access point for ESE Directors to
  obtain information related to personnel
  development activities provided through BEESS
  discretionary projects
• Work collaboratively to meet the personnel
  development needs of exceptional student
  educators within the regions

158
Regional Personnel Development Alliance

• Participants
• ESE Directors, PDP Coordinators, FDLRS Managers,
  FIN Facilitators, CARD and other discretionary
  projects managers who provide personnel
  development opportunities for exceptional student
  educators
• Regions
• Northwest, Northeast, Central, Southwest,
  Southeast (see handout for specific details)

159
PDA-ESE

• Professional Development Alternatives for
  Exceptional Student Educators (PDA-ESE) Project
  established to design, develop, and deliver
  specialized training for ESE and general
  education teachers of students with disabilities

160
PDA-ESE

• Addresses
• Floridas ESE Competencies
• Reading Endorsement Competencies 4 and 5
• PDA-ESE utilizes facilitated online modules and
  local FDLRS Centers coordination to provide
  statewide accessible professional development

161
PDA-ESE

• PDA-ESE Project
• Responds to the national challenge to provide
  highly qualified teachers mandated through
  legislation and NCLB
• Addresses statewide critical shortage needs and
  increase number of certified and well prepared
  teachers
• Provides quality professional development aligned
  with the 2002 Florida ESE competencies and the
  Reading Endorsement competencies
• Reduces development and implementation costs
  departments, projects and school districts
• Encourages the utilization of distance learning

162
PDA-ESE Overview

• Total Number of Modules Offered Statewide - 409
  (October, 2003 - June, 2007)
• Total Number of Participants - 3890
• Foundations - 761
• Assessment and Evaluation - 390
• Instructional Practices - 566
• Language Development and Communication - 376
• Positive Behavior Support - 690
• Transition - 262
• Interpersonal Interactions and Participation -
  169
• Differentiating Reading Instruction - 676

163
PDA-ESE

• During the 2006 school year
• 466 of the 528 participants who indicated they
  were taking the facilitated PDA-ESE Modules to
  prepare for a certification exam (approximately
  88)
• 83 of the 117 participants taking the Foundations
  Pilot Module (approximately 71) received a
  passing rate on the exam

164
Additional Online Resources Supporting Highly
Qualified

• Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum
• Online Content Review Module
• http//fdlrshrd.nefec.org/ic
• May 2005 June 2007....3825 total participants
• Elementary K-6
• Online Content Review Module
• http//fdlrshrd.nefec.org/elemk6
• January 2007 June 2007.1289 participants

165

• Competencies for Technology Assessment

166
Competencies for Technology Assessment

• IDEA (300.304(c)(1)(v)) requires districts to
  assure that assessments are conducted by trained
  and knowledgeable personnel
• To meet this requirement, the DOE has recommended
  competencies for LATS and technology specialists
  who assess students for needed technology
  accommodations

167
Competencies for Technology Assessment

• To assist LATS and technology specialists, BEESS
  and the Florida Center for Interactive Media
  (FCIM) are producing a competency development
  system
• Includes
• An on-line tool that will allow technology
  specialists to perform a self assessment of
  needed competencies

168
Competencies for Technology Assessment

• Links to resources, and on-line courses to meet
  professional development needs identified by the
  self-assessment
• A structure to help technology specialist
  understand their job requirements, maintain
  currency, and provide a credible record of
  achieved skills
• Information to develop individual professional
  development plans based on identified skill gaps

169
Competencies for Technology Assessment

• A list of skills that managers may use to
  identify expertise needed for open technology
  positions
• Support by ATEN Regional Technology Center
  managers in learning the on-line system and
  accessing resources
• Will be introduced to LATS and FDLRS Techs in
  regional meetings throughout the year

170

• FDLRS
• Operating
• Procedures

171
Updating of FDLRS Required Center Operating
Procedures

• Increased emphasis on balance between BEESS
  initiatives and local requests which address the
  implementation of targeted initiatives
• Overview of responsibilities of Center Managers
  and accountability to BEESS
• Center Manager equal member of Coordinating
  Council

172
Updating of FDLRS Required Center Operating
Procedures

• Advisory Committees now optional if evidence of
  other collaborative measures exist
• Updating of Center Function Priorities project
  activities must align with priorities
• Projects encouraged to continue exemplary
  planning efforts and/or institute new ones which
  promote advanced planning/coordination of center
  activities/services

173
Updating of FDLRS Required Center Operating
Procedures

• Center Operating Procedures will be reviewed with
  Coordinating Council Members
• Continue to support BEESS efforts in the areas
  of Child Find, Parent Services, Human Resource
  Development, and Technology as outlined in
  Florida Statute

174
Coming Your Way Soon !

• Finalized TAPs
• Speech/Language as a Related Service
• Speech Language Associate Rule
• Transition from Part C to Part B
• Student Assessment
• Transfer of Assistive Technology
• Students with Disabilities Enrolled by Their
  Parents in Private Schools

175
Coming Your Way Soon !

• Other Documents
• Homebound/Hospital Policies and Procedures Manual
• Guide for Educators Working in Home and Hospital
  Settings
• Expanding Opportunities for Young Children

176
Coming Your Way Soon !

• Draft TAPs
• Emotional/Behavioral Disabilities Rule
• Time Out Procedures

177
Fiscal Management

• States distribute funds in accordance with
  federal requirements
• Funds are used in accordance with federal and
  state requirements
• States provide oversight on the use of funds.
• Funds are aligned to problem areas in the SPP/APR

Fiscal Management
178
IDEA, Part B Funding

• IDEA, Part B
• Administration 10,843,851 (1.8)
• Discretionary 44,789,641 (7.6)
• Entitlement 534,696,004 (90.6)
• Total 590,329,496

179
IDEA, Part B Preschool Funding

• IDEA, Part B Preschool
• Administration 917,180 (5)
• Discretionary 2,871,726 (15.5)
• Entitlement 14,693,566 (79.5)
• Total 18,482,472

180

• Early
• Intervening
• Services

181
Early Intervening Services

• LEAs may spend up to 15 of their IDEA funds for
  Early Intervening Services
• Early Intervening Services are provided to
  non-disabled students in grades K-12 who need
  additional academic and behavioral supports to
  succeed in school
• Special emphasis on K-3

182
Early Intervening Services

• Professional development regarding
  scientifically-based academic and behavioral
  interventions
• Provision of educational and behavioral
  evaluations, services and supports

183
Early Intervening Services

• LEAs are required to report to the state the
  number of children receiving EIS and whether or
  not they were later (2 yrs out) placed in special
  education
• LEAs found disproportionate in identification,
  placement, or discipline are required by the
  state to spend 15 of their IDEA funds on early
  intervening services

184
Early Intervening Services

• Criteria for disproportionality in
  identification, placement, and discipline are
  established by states
• The same criteria must be applied to all three
  categories

185

• OSEP
• Verification
• Visits

186
OSEP Verification Visits

• In 2001 Florida participated in a verification
  visit that addressed the states
• General Supervision system
• Data system
• Assessment system

187
OSEP Verification Visits

• New round of visits will include
• General Supervision System
• Data System
• Fiscal Management (New)

188
Fiscal Management Elements

• Distribution of Funds
• Use of Funds
• Monitoring Use of Funds
• Timely Obligation/Liquidation of Funds

189
Fiscal Verification Use of Funds

• Does the state have systems in place to ensure
  compliance
• Maintenance of Effort
• Excess and Allowable Costs
• Early Intervening Services
• Schoolwide Services
• Parentally Placed Private School students

190
General Supervision http//www.monitoringcenter.ls
uhsc.edu/PDF20Word/120EffectiveGeneralSupervisio
nfinal201-16-07.pdf
State Performance Plan
Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation
Integrated Monitoring Activities
Data on Processes and Results
Fiscal Management
Targeted Technical Assistance Professional
Development
Improvement, Correction, Incentives Sanctions
Effective Dispute Resolution
Big 8
191

• Standards Assessment

192

• Access Points

193
Sunshine State Standards and Access Points
FCAT without accommodations FCAT with
accommodations Florida Alternate Assessment for
SWSCD
Curriculum Instructional Strategies
Standards Driven System
194
What Are Access Points?

• Expectations written for students with
  significant cognitive disabilities
• Embedded in the Sunshine State Standards
• Provide access to the general education
  curriculum
• Reflect the core intent of the standards with
  reduced levels of complexity
• Ensure access to academic skills and concepts
  that apply to same age peers

195
Levels of Complexity

• Describe the knowledge and skills required at
  each grade level
• Independent Supported Participatory
• In. Su. Pa.

Less Complex
More Complex
Complexity
196
Status of Access Points

• Reading and language arts access points were
  approved by the SBE in March 2007
• Math access points will be submitted to the SBE
  with the math standards for adoption
• Science and Social Studies access points are
  currently being written by two teams of content
  area and special education personnel

197
Implementation

• Language Arts was implemented in classrooms
  during the 2006-07 school year
• Math is expected to be implemented during the
  2007-08 school year

198

• Alternate
• Assessment

199
Alternate Assessment

• Peer Review
• States are required to have their standards and
  assessment systems reviewed and approved by the
  USED
• Florida spent approximately 1-1/2 years in an
  iterative peer review with USED

200
Alternate Assessment

• Peer Review
• USED provided their final response to Floridas
  pe