INAPPROPRIATE ID State Monitoring Results State Methodologies Framework Policies & Procedures

Organizing an Effective Delivery System: From Law to Practice Long Island Association of Special Education Administrators Jan. 27 2009 Winter Conference Sue Gamm, Esq. [email protected] Public Consulting Group

Exploring Inappropriate Identification

Leadership for Equity and Excellence ForumFebruary 16, 2010

Sue Gamm, Esq. [email protected] Consulting Group

INAPPROPRIATE IDState Monitoring ResultsState Methodologies FrameworkPolicies & ProceduresMonitoringIn 2007-08, a growing number of states reported no school districts with disproportionate rep due to inappropriate identification.

STATE MONITORING RESULTS

Number of States with No Inappropriate ID2005-6: 26 states (52%)2007-8: 42 states (84%)

INDICATOR 913: No disproportionate representation29: No inappropriate identificationOF THE 42 STATES

No. SEAs with Various Percent of LEAS with Inappropriate ID % LEAs0%0.1 - 2.9%3.0 5.9%6.0- 8.9%9% or >No. LEAs05-626133324706-73874105007-842611050States with no inappropriate ID increased by 62% (26 to 42) States > 3% LEAs with inappropriate ID reduced by 75% (8 to 2)

FROM FY 2006 to 2008

Number of States with No Inappropriate ID2005-6: 6 states (12%) 2007-8: 34 states (69%)

INDICATOR 106: No disproportionate representation28: No inappropriate identificationOF THE 34 STATES

No. SEAs with Various Percent of LEAS having Inappropriate ID % LEAs0%0.1- 3.9%4.0- 7.9%8.0- 11.9%12% or >No. LEAs05-621113644506-727133324807-8341211149 States with no inappropriate ID increased by 62% (21 to 34) States > 4% LEAs with inappropriate ID reduced by 76% (13 to 3)

FROM FY 2006 to 2008

Increased no inappropriate ID 9. 62% (26 to 42)10. 62% (21 to 34) Decreased more than 3% 9. 75% (8 to 2)10. 76% (13 to 3)

SEAs FY 06 to 08

Celebration Time

SIGNIFICANT VARIANCE Defining disproportionate representationMonitoring LEASDetermining inappropriate ID

In August 2009, OSEPs Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network issued a report on Indicators 9 and 10, with two chapters: Data Accountability Center (DAC) and NCRTI each prepared one chapter

14DEFINITIONSCut-points range from 1.5 to 4 Various cell sizes Impact # targeted LEAs

In August 2009, OSEPs Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network issued a report on Indicators 9 and 10, with two chapters: Data Accountability Center (DAC) and NCRTI each prepared one chapter

1526: State-level monitoring activities 25: Targeted LEAs self-assess 3: General self-assess not linked to disproportionality17: Tool/rubric for self-study 3: Different process over/under

MONITORING METHODSIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

16At a minimum must comply with: Child find (300.111)Policies, procedures & practices with SEAs (300.201) Assessment and eligibility (300.301-300.311). FINDING INAPPROPRIATE IDIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

17RtI optional in LD eligibility process Must consider PBIS for student whose behavior impedes his/her learning or that of others RtI & PBIS in IDEAIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

18

QueryIs compliance with minimum OSEP requirements sufficient to reduce disproportionality?

In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

20LEAs with significant disproportionality must use 15% IDEA funds for EIS activities because research shows positive impact on identification of targeted racial/ethnic groups.

In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

21OSEP will begin to look more closely at how states decide if LEAs are disproportionally identifying students as having disabilities. In particular, will review more closely the various formulas states use in making these determinations.OSEP Monitoring ChiefIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

22 Max & Sues Core Beliefs

SEA/LEA that restrict PP&P and monitoring to strict IDEA mandates may set students up for identification when they may may otherwise respond positively to RTI & PBIS. In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

24LD

Disability or ABT?Eligibility decisions related to students poor performance in reading or behavior must beconditioned on the receipt of research-based instruction. In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches. Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17) Reviews of student records (10) Reviews of existing monitoring data (6) Onsite visits (5)Reviews of due process complaints (2) Additional data collection and analysis (1)

26

Designing

Change

27

Talk About It

Disproportionality in Special Education: Where & Why it Occurs

PP&P Framework

Monitoring Framework

Lets Talk:What is Inappropriate ID?

Electronic Support33

Identify students who need supportIdentify students needing support34Student IDLast NameFirst NameGradeTierAreaSuccess/Failure AlertPrescribed Time SpentGoalIntervention 7946

Rick

Queza 3

2

Reading

Intervention Fidelity Compromised30 Minutes/ 3 Days a Week

Fluency to grade level

Lexia

0514

Ron

Mejia

3

2

Reading

Intervention Fidelity Compromised30 Minutes/ 3 Days a Week

Fluency to grade level

Lexia

2302

Dave

Willia

3

3

Reading

Intervention Fidelity Compromised45 Minutes/5 Days a Week

Improved comprehension to grade levelSuccess Maker

7488

Maria

Davis

3

2

Reading

Intervention Fidelity Compromised45 Minutes/3 Days a Week

Improved comprehension to grade levelSoar to Success

2299

Carlos

Figuer 4

2

Reading

Intervention Fidelity Compromised

15 Minutes/3 Days a Week

Fluency to grade level

Repeated readings6376

Steph

Fimbre

4

3

Reading

Intervention Fidelity Compromised

45 Minutes/5 Days a Week

Improved comprehension to grade level

Success Maker

Are interventions implemented with fidelity?

Is the intervention working?36

Which supports are working best for students?37

School and District Dashboards38

39