Office for Exceptional Children UpdatesOAPSA

February 6, 2015

The Federal Agenda

USDOE, Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education

USDOE, Office of Special Education

Programs1 ESEAWaiver@education.ohio.gov

How states focus, support and measure student learning outcomes

RDA is framed to Impact …

Comprehensive Monitoring – Focus on Results TA/Support

2014-15 Onsite Monitoring Districts

Bucyrus City Canfield LocalCoshocton City North Dayton School Of Science &

Discovery

Parkway Local Plain Local

Schnee Learning Center Sylvania City

Wellington Ex. Village West Geauga Local

Wilmington City

SPP Indicator Monitoring - ALL

Selective Reviews – A few

State Systemic Improvement Plan

Year 1Delivered byApril 2015

Year 2Delivered by

February 2016

Years 3-6DeliveredFeb 2017-

2020

Phase I – Analysis Phase II – Plan Phase III – Evaluation

1) Data analysis2) Infrastructure

analysis3) Focus area4) Improvement

strategies5) Theory of action

1) Infrastructure development

2) Support for LEA implementation of EBPs

3) Evaluation

Report progress on SSIP implementation

RDA

Increase capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence-based practices.

Improve results for children with disabilities (and their families).

The Purpose of the SSIP:Shared Learning, Partnerships, and

Innovative Practice

Ohio’s SSIP: Process and ActionStrategic Focus Area: Early Literacy

Improving results for children and youth with disabilities and other diverse learners

Strategies that address:

• the role of parents;• early identification and intervention;• phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading ;• clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the

effectiveness of different types of reading instruction;• the role of teachers, their professional development, and their

interactions and collaborations ;• the role of higher education and other collaborative partners.

Ohio’s Annual Performance

Report (APR)

Submitted Feb. 2, 2015

SAPEC: indicator target setting

ComplianceIndicators

Indicator 4BIndicator: Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions or expulsions for greater than 10 days for children with IEPs; and policies, procedures or practices that do not comply with IDEA requirements.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

0.0%

2.7%

0.8% 0.7%0.2%

TargetActual

Indicator 11Indicator: Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1493%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

96.0%

97.3%97.7% 97.5%

98.3%

TargetActual

Indicator 12Indicator: Percent of children referred by Part C, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their 3rd birthdays.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

98.9%99.2%

98.9%99.1% 99.2%

TargetActual

Indicator 13Indicator: Percent of youth aged 16 and above with compliant transition plans in their IEPs.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%99.5% 99.6%

97.9%

99.5%99.3%

TargetActual

Complaint TimelinesTimely Resolution of State Complaints: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day timeline.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

97.2%

100.0%

TargetActual

Due Process TimelinesTimely Adjudication of Due Process Hearing Requests: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1495%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

TargetActual

OEC Dispute Resolution

• Significant increase in the number of mediations and facilitations

• Updated Complaint Procedures

ResultsIndicators

Indicator 1Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.

*Four-year graduation rate required beginning 11-1211-12 12-13 13-14

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0% 87.5%

75.9%78.2%

66.9% 68.1% 68.9% TargetActual

Indicator 2Indicator: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

11-12 12-13 13-140.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%12.5% 12.5%

5.3%4.7%5.5% 5.2%

TargetActual

Indicator 3C MathIndicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above the proficient level on statewide math assessments.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-140.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

70.0% 72.7%

81.8%

90.9%45.6%

39.2%45.7% 46.8%

43.1% 44.1%TargetActual

Indicator 3C ReadingIndicator: Percent of students with disabilities who scored at or above the proficient level on statewide reading assessments.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-140.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

76.0%82.1%

88.0%94.0%

55.9%

44.3%

54.3% 54.6% 54.6% 55.1%TargetActual

Indicator 5AIndicator: Percent of children with IEPs ages 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day.

09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-1440.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

49.4%

59.8%61.5% 62.3% 62.5%

57.4%58.5%

60.3%62.0% 62.8%

TargetActual

Indicator 6Indicator: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending: A) Regular early childhood program; or B) Separate special education class, school or facility.

11-12 12-13 13-140.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%50.6% 52.2% 55.0%

39.6% 38.5% 36.5%

Indicator 7Indicator: Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:A. Positive social-emotional skills;B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (early literacy); andC. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%81.6%

48.9%

80.9%

47.6%

83.6%

58.2%

10-1111-1212-1313-14

Indicator 14Indicator: Percent of students with disabilities who, within one year of leaving high school, are enrolled in higher education, participating in a training program, or competitively employed.

10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 Nation

33.7%26.5%

69.9%

57.0%

78.4%73.4%

Enrolled in Higher Ed

Enrolled in Higher Ed or Employed

Enrolled in Higher Ed, Employed, or in Training Program

State and District Determinations

District determination results are used to make the state’s determination.

Compliance

Matrix

Results Matrix

To make determinations states must consider:

• Performance on compliance indicators;• Uncorrected noncompliance from any source;• Submission of valid, reliable and timely data; and• IDEA-specific audit findings.

States can consider:

Performance on results indicators

State Systemic Improvement Plan

Year 1Delivered byApril 2015

Year 2Delivered by

February 2016

Years 3-6DeliveredFeb 2017-

2020

Phase I – Analysis Phase II – Plan Phase III – Evaluation

1) Data analysis2) Infrastructure

analysis3) Focus area4) Improvement

strategies5) Theory of action

1) Infrastructure development

2) Support for LEA implementation of EBPs

3) Evaluation

Report progress on SSIP implementation

Ohio’s SSIP:

Strategic Focus Area: Early LiteracyImproving results for children and youth with disabilities and other diverse

learners Strategies that address:

• the role of parents and other collaborative partners, especially in providing children with early language and literacy experiences that foster reading development;

• early identification and intervention for all children at risk for reading failure;• phonemic awareness, phonics, and good literature in reading instruction and the

need to develop a clear understanding of how best to integrate different reading approaches to enhance the effectiveness of instruction for all students;

• clear, objective, and scientifically based information on the effectiveness of different types of reading instruction and the need to have such research inform policy and practice;

• the role of teachers, their professional development, and their interactions and collaborations with researchers

• the role of higher education and other collaborative partners in the design and delivery of teacher preparation programs that prepare teachers to understand and provide effective reading instruction to diverse learners.

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restraint and Seclusion

www.education.ohio.govKeyword search: Restraint and

Seclusion

HB 178

Signed December 2014

Effects:• Community Schools • STEM Schools &• College Preparatory Boarding Schools

Effective: March 2015

Results of Year 1 District Reporting

Survey Responses

560 Traditional Schools

167 Community Schools

11 Education Service Center

22 Career Technical Ed

Total Respondents: 760

PBIS Restraint and Seclusion Policy

646 districts

System or Framework of PBIS

758 districts

Data Trends

Special Education:

97%

General Education:

3%

Data Trends

All others

Autism

Emotional Disability

2013-2014 school year

Prevention & Support:

PBISProject AWARE

Positive Transformations for Ohio Schools: Building Statewide Positive

Supports

A statewide network of trained, experienced professionals

Evidence-based system for evaluating fidelity and outcomes of PBIS

Cross-Agency Collaboration

Prevention and Support

Making Ohio AWARE:

Building Statewide

Mental Health First Aid

Extracurricular Athletics

Reminder: Jan. 25, 2013 US Department of Education guidance• Extracurricular Athletics

– Access– Parallel athletic programs

Challenges

• State Assessments

• Third Grade Reading GuaranteeRIMP – IEP

• FBA / BIP

Development Work

• Urban Monitoring and Support

• Transitional Youth: Career pathways exploration and work experience, self-directed planning for some, staff training, support post-high school

• Exploring system for statewide IEP/ETR/special ed. documentation

RFPs & Projects

• Center for Sensory Disabilities

• Transition Training Modules for middle school and secondary teachers

• PBIS development RFPs awarded:– Recognition System– Training– Tier 2 and 3 development: resources and training

OAPSA Representation Needed …

Field test online special education guidance format

Determinations considerations and calculation workgroup

Expanded SSIP workgroup: focus on strategies

State IEP/ETR/special ed data system

education.ohio.gov

Sue Zakesue.zake@education.ohio.gov