Effective Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities presented by Larry Gloeckler, Executive Director Special Education Institute of.

Effective Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities presented by Larry Gloeckler, Executive Director

Special Education Institute of the International Center for Leadership in Education, Inc.

To hear this webinar you will need to choose your audio mode.

Go to the control panel in the upper right corner of your screen and click the button of how you will be listening. Your choices:

Use telephone Use mic & speakers

If using mic & speakers make sure your volume is turned up so you can hear

If using the telephone

Dial: 312-878-0222 Access Code: 582-278-797 Audio PIN: unique PIN shown in audio control panel on screen

Technical difficulties? Contact Debra Light at (518) 723-2071.

www.LeaderEd.com

All participants are on mute.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

IDEA funds are provided under three authorities: 1. $11.3 billion is available under Part B Grants to States

2. $400 million is available under Part B Preschool Grants

3. $500 million is available under Part C Grants for Infants and Families

Using ARRA Funds to Drive School Reform and Improvement from U.S. Department of Education

• Framing questions for decision-making • Examples of potential uses of funds specific to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,

Title I, and IDEA, Part B programs

www.LeaderEd.com/StimulusFunding.html

Webinar Guidelines

• All participants are on mute during the entire webinar.

• Presentation portion will be 45 minutes

• Questions and Answers portion will be 15 minutes

• To ask a question type it in the question control panel in the upper right corner of your screen. Content questions will be answered in the order they were received at the end

of the webinar presentation.

We will send you a follow up email with the PowerPoint presentation and helpful resources

Agenda

• Strategies that work best in improving performance for students receiving special education services and why.

• Dilemmas educators face and how they resolve them.

• The most common missteps when struggling to improve results for these students.

• Question and Answer

Effective Strategies for Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities

May 8, 2009

Lawrence Gloeckler, Executive Director, Special Education Institute

Special Education InstituteSpecial Education Institute

Leadership Training

Needs Assessment

Data analysis for decision making and resource allocation

Strategic planning and implementation

Assuring students with disabilities are part of all the research, technical assistance and leadership efforts we undertake

State Presentations

LEA technical assistance Other TA

Special Education Institute – May 2009

Fundamental ChallengeFundamental Challenge

Changing the expectations of educators, parents,

community members and students regarding what is

possible

ChangeDr. Richard Jones

Revolutionary in spirit, evolutionary in time frame Schools produce the results they are designed to

produce• Different results require change in the system,

not simply demanding the system work better.• School-change occurs guided by leadership,

driven by data, supported by continuous professional learning.

• Begin with the end in mind• Beware of changing too quickly or without a

clear destination.

Sustaining SuccessValerie Chrisman

• Eighty-three low performing schools that showed sustained growth – 273 growth for only a year.

• Neither specific characteristics at schools or qualities of students account for difference between successful and unsuccessful schools.

• Rather how well a school operates, quality of leadership and instructional programs and practices.

11

A Vision People with Disabilities A Vision People with Disabilities Will:Will:

• Live Independently

• Enjoy Self Determination

• Make Choices

• Pursue Meaningful Careers

• Enjoy Full Inclusion and Integration in the Economic, Political, Social, Cultural and Educational Mainstream of American Society

New York State Education Department, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, June 2003

Strengths

• The general and special education staff are dedicated and caring.

• The teachers of students receiving special education services are generally viewed by parents very positively.

• The relationship between general education and special education faculty are viewed as collegial and supportive.

Strengths

• There is a general agreement that throughout districts, there are “pockets of excellence” in serving students with disabilities that would be worthy of replication across the district.

There is strong agreement at all levels as to the importance of evolving as a more inclusive school district.

Both general education and special education students benefited from inclusion.

• Students in inclusion classes appear to be making greater effort then when in self-contained classes and behaviors are generally more appropriate.

The co-teaching model has expanded opportunities for special needs students to access the general education curriculum.

• Co-teaching is viewed as an instructional strength when partners are kept together from year to year and has also helped in reducing behavior problems.

Strengths

Issues

• There is no systematic intervention system across the district. This has led to what many participants in the group discussions believe is an over-referral of students to special education.

• General education teachers would like more training on intervention strategies for struggling students.

Issues

• There is a general perception that expectations for students with disabilities are too low.

• General education teachers are left on their own to figure out how to implement accommodations, and there is no process to determine if accommodations are being implemented correctly.

Issues

• The curriculum offered to students with disabilities is not systematically aligned with the general education curriculum, and not aligned from elementary, to middle, to high school. Career and technical education programs are not easily accessible.

Issues • The issue of inconsistency of programs among

buildings is identified frequently at all levels. This was considered problematic for students as they transition to the next level as well as for students who are mobile within the district. There is little communication regarding programs and services between buildings.

• There is consistent perception that the culture of the district, particularly at the secondary level, results in a “my kids/your kids” environment. There is not a perception that all staff are responsible for all of the students.

Issues

• There is substantial agreement that new programs are frequently implemented without proper training, staff development and follow through to ensure deep implementation.

• The curriculum in self-contained classes appears to be teacher and building driven with inconsistency across classrooms and buildings.

Issues

Teachers feel that districts change direction and program approaches too frequently.

Issues

• There has been a lack of training on the collaborative model. Training has not been presented to special education and general education teachers together. Recently hired teachers have not had training in the model. This has lead to teachers having to “figure out” how to implement the model effectively.

• Schools are using co-teaching as their inclusion model with little, if any other, program approaches available to students receiving special education services.

Issues

• There is inadequate common planning time for teachers involved in the collaborative model. This issue is raised consistently as an obstacle to having an effective program.

• Limited use of various co-teaching approaches with teach and assist being the predominant model.

Recommendations • Districts should convene a representative group of

key personnel in order to establish a strategic plan for services to students identified as needing special education services with a clear vision and laser like focus on improving performance for these students.

• Thoughtfully and purposefully create a culture of high expectations among all staff for students with disabilities. This is a critical first step in improving student performance. General education faculty need to view themselves as the front line of support for these students.

Recommendations

• Districts should review current intervention systems and consider establishing a more data driven, systematic approach for struggling students. Strong intervention systems in highly effective schools result in better student performance, fewer students not meeting performance expectations and a reduction in any unnecessary reliance on special education. The intervention system must be owned by general education.

Intervention System

Intervention System

Laney, 2008

Recommendations

• General education teachers and administrators need to have greater responsibility for educating students receiving special education services. Special education faculty need to become part of collaborative teams at the building level responsible for all students. The isolation between general education and special education teachers needs to be eliminated.

Collaborative approaches work best – if done right

Co-teaching Team teaching

Faculty Arrangements

Provide ongoing professional development regarding the design and implementation of co-teaching.

Arrange site visits for staff to schools that are implementing co-teaching successfully.

Essential Tasks for Building Administrators in Ensuring a Successful Co-Teaching Program:

Monitor the fidelity of implementation of the co-teaching model, effective instruction, and positive classroom/behavior management

Communicate with parents about the use of co-teaching through school newsletters, curriculum nights, and parent training opportunities.

Rigor and Relevance Framework

And

Co-Teaching Model

Laney, 2008

Develop data-driven strategies to improve performance. These

strategies should be used at all levels, from the administrative

level to make policy decisions to the classroom level to make

instructional decisions.Special Education Review

March 2005

Laney, 2008

Recommendations

• The issue of building to building and grade to grade consistency is often identified as an issue by school districts. A review of building level practices needs to be undertaken to identify those that have resulted in the highest student performance. Those best practices should be made available across district programs. Communication between buildings needs to be strengthened so that there is a heightened awareness of best practices and high performance across the district.

Recommendations

• The transition between elementary, middle school and high school are viewed as problematic. Districts need to establish a cohesive strategy to support students and teachers during these transitions.

Recommendations

• Staff development offered by districts needs to support the implementation of any programmatic recommendations adopted by the district. Staff development needs to be data driven, highly focused on the most important issues and persistent over time. The issues cannot be resolved through “one-shot” training. There needs to be a multi-year, persistent focus on the issues identified as most important.

Freeport

Intermediate

School

75.6%

31.2%White

54.0%Hispanic

14.8%African American

We can teach all children.

5.5% 22.3

Student assessment results show NO significant difference in performance between any student groups.

Goal:

FIS 10 YEAR READING FIS 10 YEAR READING COMPARISONCOMPARISON

63

7270

83

94.3

98.1 98.796.2

54

98.395.6 96.2

90.5

52

64

97.799.1

96.8

8082 82

9295 96

98 99.4 99.4 98.8 98.1

91.5

97.4 97.8 96.5

9491

94

59

65

80

95

81

88

63

90

93

75

92

88.8

61

64

88

92

76

93

50556065707580859095

100

1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

All Students A. American Hispanic White Eco. Dis.

FIS 10 YEAR MATH FIS 10 YEAR MATH COMPARISONCOMPARISON

36

55

77

99 99.1 98.7

93.295.7 94.6

86.2

45

99 99.5 99.194.9

46

71 70

90

9996

99.4 99.4

93.398.9 98.6

91.89692

56

96

3640

8495

68

20

95

100

49

91

95

69

33

9595 99

46

49

89

96

66

22

97

99

2030

4050

6070

8090

100

1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

All Students A. American Hispanic White Eco. Dis.

Who Are We?

BROCKTON HIGH SCHOOL

• Comprehensive 9 – 12• Enrollment: approximately 4,300• Poverty Level: 60%• 30 different languages represented• 1/3 do not speak English as their primary

language• Approximately 10% enrolled in Transitional

Bilingual Education Program• Approximately 10% receive Special

Education Services

Changing Attitudes

• Everyone is responsible for every student

• Believing that every student

CAN and MUST• Our responsibility: to figure out how to

help

Putting Programs in Place

• Inclusion, Inclusion, Inclusion

• Intervention Strategies

• Co-teaching Initiative

9,7678,424

7,226

8,305

5,675

6,790

2,832

4,9694,154

2,499

13,07912,144

9,68011,194

8,60610,461

4,175

7,545

9,514

3,414

20,08118,949

16,30914,101

17,321

15,366

13,51812,607

5,6474,419

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number with Score of 65-100Number with Score of 55-100Number Tested

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.

Regents English ExaminationStudents with Disabilities

Public Schools-Including Charter SchoolsFinal: April 2007

5,736 5,732

18,468

12,28410,894

3,162

10,068

6,0394,8714,028

2,675

17,127

15,000

8,267 7,709

13,663

4,8678,151

6,7734,990

3,421

24,48322,129

16,82619,015

13,01617,074

13,304

5,776

8,327

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number with Score of 65-100Number with Score of 55-100Number Tested

*Results beginning in 1999 reflect students taking either of the two math examinations. Sequential Mathematics Course I examination was discontinued in 2002.

Regents Sequential Mathematics Course Iand Math A Examinations*

Students with Disabilities

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

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.

Final: April 2007

Questions and Answers

• This is the end of the presentation portion.

• Submit questions at this time and stay on to hear the answers.

• If you are logging off, thank you for attending and we will email you with follow-up information.

For more information about the Special Education Institute, Larry Gloecker, and ARRA

www.LeaderEd.com

Thank you for attending!We hope you found the information valuable.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments. We encourage and value your feedback.

518-399-2776 | [email protected]

For more information about how we can support you visit

www.LeaderEd.com

Larry is available to work with your district or agency and to speak at state or national conferences.

For scheduling information, please contact Karen Wilkins at (518) 723-2057 or [email protected].

www.LeaderEd.com

Larry Gloeckler, Senior Vice President and Keynote Speaker

www.leadered.com/aboutgloeckler.html

17th Annual Model Schools Conference17th Annual Model Schools ConferenceJune 28 - July 1, 2009June 28 - July 1, 2009

Atlanta Atlanta

Visit www.LeaderEd.com for more informationVisit www.LeaderEd.com for more information

Lawrence Gloeckler, Executive DirectorLawrence Gloeckler, Executive DirectorSpecial Education InstituteSpecial Education Institute

International Center for Leadership in Education, Inc.

1587 Route 146

Rexford, NY 12148

Phone (518) 399-2776

Fax (518) 399-7607

E-mail: [email protected]

www.LeaderEd.com