Agenda 1:00 Introductions and ZOOM Webinar reminders 1:05 Topics: Statewide Field Test for Fiscal State Application for Title VI-B, RTI Resources, and Disproportionality 1:50 Answer questions Future Calls The monthly call topics will be on the special education website under the “Monthly TA Call” tab Please submit topics or questions for future calls on our website Future calls will be held on the second Friday of each month from 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. (a reminder will be sent monthly) Webinar Reminders If you have questions during the webinar, please ask them by clicking on the question button. If you are experiencing any technical difficulties, please let us know by clicking on the chat button. You can see and hear us, but we are not able to see or hear you

Response-to-Intervention Resources March 2016

Multi-tier system of support model RTI Resources services/curriculum-and-instruction/rti/resources Modules Available on AR IDEAS: 1.RTI Arkansas Overview (AR IDEAS session #IAC15036) 2.RTI Arkansas Leadership (AR IDEAS session #IAC15035) 3.RTI Arkansas Multi-tiered System of Support/Literacy Handbook (AR IDEAS session # IAC16004) 4.High School Handbook Coming Soon

New Literacy Progression

Literacy Intervention Matrix and-resources/literacy/literacy- matrix/overview.html The Arkansas Literacy Intervention Matrix is a resource consisting of instructional materials for grades K-12 addressing the five essential areas of literacy; phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension, plus two additional components - oral language and writing. The core of the matrix is sample lessons and interventions for students in Tier's I-V.

Math Intervention Matrix The Math Interventions Matrix is designed to help educators identify and implement interventions for students who are not learning and/or mastering the mathematics skills that they need to be successful from kindergarten through high school.

IDEA Provisions Addressing Disproportionality Key Elements: Each state may select and used its own methodology for determination GAO Report 2013 – states had applied wide range of definitions 2% of LEAS nationally received IDEA funds identified as having significant disproportionality in Some states have defined overrepresentation in a manner that made it unlikely that LEAs would be identified More recent reviews – handful of states responsible for overwhelming majority of determinations of significant disproportionality ED is responding to these findings with proposing regs requiring states use a single mythology “risk ratio”

Risk Ratio Percentage of racial or ethnic group in an LEA who are identified, placed or disciplined divided by the same percentage for all other students For example, if 15% of African-American students in a LEA are identified as in need of special education, compared to 10% of all other students, the risk ratio of African American students would be 1.5 (15.10) meaning that African Americans are at 50% higher risk of being over identified

Risk Ratio The SEA would determine whether an LEA has a significant disproportionality by comparing the LEA’s risk ratio for a specific racial or ethnic group and phenomenon with the state’s “risk ratio threshold,” a state-determined ratio above which an LEA would be determined to have a significant disproportionality. For instance, the risk ratio threshold for identification as in need of special education might be 2.0, so an LEA’s ratio of 1.5 for a certain group would be under the threshold and the LEA would not be identified.

Risk Ratio In the notice’s preamble, ED states that its objective in proposing these requirements is to create greater uniformity among the states in the metrics they use in identifying significant disproportionality and that the required calculations reflect the guidance previously provided by ED’s Office of Special Education Programs 2008 memorandum to states.

Risk Ratio ED is not proposing to establish specific risk ratio thresholds that all states would use. Rather, the proposal would allow each state to set its own threshold or thresholds, subject to the conditions that all thresholds be: (1) “reasonable,” (2) developed based on advice from stakeholders, including the state’s IDEA State Advisory Panel; and (3) subject to monitoring and enforcement for reasonableness by ED. The preamble clarifies that a state could have different thresholds for different categories of analysis, so long as they all meet the three criteria.

Risk Ratio Review and Revision of Policies, Practices, and Procedures – Current regulations restate the law by requiring that if an SEA identifies an LEA as having a significant disproportionality in identification or placement, the SEA must provide for the review and, if appropriate, revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in making identifications and placement decisions. The proposal would provide that the review must be conducted in every year in which the LEA is so identified. In addition, the proposal includes provisions to clarify what ED describes as an ambiguity in the statutory language, by providing that the requirement for review and revision applies to cases where there is a significant disproportionality in disciplinary removals, in addition to those in which there is significant disproportionality in identification or placement.

CEIS The proposed amendments would provide for an expansion (compared to current statute and regulations) of what may be included under comprehensive CEIS: professional development and educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports. Comprehensive CEIS must include activities to identify and address the factors contributing to the significant disproportionality (which may include, according to the text of the proposal, a lack of access to scientifically based instruction as well as economic, cultural, or linguistic barriers to appropriate identification or placement in particular settings, including disciplinary removals). The proposal would provide for an expansion of the uses of funds reserved for comprehensive CEIS. Under the proposal, funds reserved for comprehensive CEIS may be used to serve children age 3 through grade 12 (particularly in those groups that were significantly over-identified), including both children with disabilities and children not currently identified as needing special education but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment. However, under the proposal, an LEA would not be permitted to provide comprehensive CEIS only to children with disabilities.

Tier II – LEAs Identified for Two or More Years: LEAs notified by April 1 Self Assessments due by April 30 ADE-SEU review by May 30 Tier II - LEAs with two or more years: review sample folders or all (review is targeted to the specific area) October 2016 – behavior or academics specific to race or disability – review students that led to identification – review of evaluation evidence OR – Review of Manifestation, FBA, BIP – CEIS Plan for LEA 90 days to provide updated evidence Written policies and procedures to address indicator

Tier II: LEAs Identified With Two Years or More Folder check for identification – pull list of initial evaluations – random review using SFC of disability category for which the LEA did the initial evaluation – crosswalk from self-assessment – review CEIS Plan to make sure it addresses target population and issue Folder check for behavior – pull list of OSS over 10 days – random review using SFC to ensure representation by race identified as disproportionate – review CEIS plan to make sure it addresses target population and issue

Success Gap Rubric 19 School District Were Invited to Attend Success Gap Training In Little Rock February, 2016 Each District Selected Team which included; building administrators, general education teachers, special education staff, counselors, school psychologist, etc.

Purpose: To address success gaps… … District were encouraged to look closely at equity, inclusion, and opportunity for children in the affected groups and to P

……Investigate the root causes of your success gaps Some questions might include……. Do we use data-based decision making? Are we cultural responsive? Do we have high-quality core instruction? Do we use universal screening and progress monitoring? Do we use evidence-based interventions and supports?

For More Information About The Success Gap Rubric Success Gap Rubric – ba0d8358b4569/54c ba0e2148 b456d/success_gaps_rubric/2015/01/28/succ ess_gaps_rubric.pdf

Curriculum and Instruction Updates March 2016

Annual Review Updates

Standards-Based IEP Trainings