Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Presented by Lawrence Dennis Education Consultant for the Office for Exceptional Children October 23, 2014 OCTA Fall Conference.
Advertisements

State Systemic Improvement Plan: Preparing, Planning, and Staying Informed Presentation to Louisiana ICC July 10, 2013.
Rhode Island State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Stakeholder Input November 6, 2014.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
August 2006 OSEP Project Director's Conference 1 Preparing Teachers to Teach All Children: The Impact of the Work of the Center for Improving Teacher Quality.
Sue Zake, Ph.D. Director of OEC
OAPSA Fall Conference Sue Zake, Director of OEC September 26, 2014.
Final Determinations. Secretary’s Determinations Secretary annually reviews the APR and, based on the information provided in the report, information.
Office of Special Education Services Instructional Leaders Roundtable Oct. 16, 2014 John R. Payne, Director.
NC SSIP: 5 Things We’ve Learned Directors’ Update March 2015 ncimplementationscience.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/Recent+Presentations.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: RENEWAL PROCESS November 20, 2014.
NC SSIP: Top 5 Things We’ve Learned Mid-South Meeting January 7-8, 2015.
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY SSIP Implementation Support Activity 1 OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
Results-Driven Accountability OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1.
Overview of Idaho’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Division of Special Education Dr. Charlie Silva State Director of Special Education 1.
Academy for New Special Education Leadership 2015.
Strategic Planning Board Update February 27, 2012 Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only.
State Systemic Improvement Plan March 18,  All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best supports States in.
Education in Delaware: ESEA Flexibility Renewal Community Town Hall Ryan Reyna, Office of Accountability.
Special Education in the United States Susie Fahey and Mario Martinez.
Special Education Briefing April 10, 2015 HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HawaiiPublicSchools.org.
STATE CONSORTIUM ON EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS September 10, 2013.
Using State Data to Inform Parent Center Work. Region 2 Parent Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) Conference Charleston, SC June 25, 2015 Presenter: Terry.
SSIP Implementation Support Visit Idaho State Department of Education September 23-24, 2014.
2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Participation of the State Advisory Panel and State Interagency.
1 Accountability Conference Education Service Center, Region 20 September 16, 2009.
SHAME FEAR I AM NOT SEEN ACCESS I AM SEEN SYSTEMS CHANGE I AM A SPECIAL CITIZEN ACCOUNTABILITY and BUILD CAPACITY I BELONG AND MEANINGFUL LIFE EFFECTIVENESS.
National Consortium On Deaf-Blindness Families Technical Assistance Information Services and Dissemination Personnel Training State Projects.
RESULTS-DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION Ann Moore, State Director Office of Special Education (OSE) January 2013.
An Introduction to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report.
Results Driven Accountability The Ins, Outs and What We Know JENNIFER S. MAUSKAPF, ESQ. BONNIE L. GRAHAM, ESQ.
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System US Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Overview of the OSEP Continuous Improvement.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs The Legacy of IDEA 2004: Improving Results for all Students Dr. Alexa Posny.
All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and.
Georgia Parent Mentor Kickoff: Inform, Imagine, Inspire with Results-Driven Accountability Ruth Ryder DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
SHERRI YBARRA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS TO ACHIEVE.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction State of California Annual Performance Report Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
ESEA FLEXIBILITY: EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS FORUM September 29, 2011 Carmel Martin, Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Office of Special Education January 20, 2016.
WHAT A GREAT IDEA!! Focusing on Results and Using IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Part D Investments to Support Improved Outcomes for.
February 2016 Overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Special Education State Performance Plan and Annual Performance.
O S E P Office of Special Education Programs United States Department of Education Aligning the State Performance Plan, Improvement Strategies, and Professional.
MDE Office of Special Education Teri L. Chapman, Ed.S., Director February 17, 2016 MAASE.
Overview: Every Student Succeeds Act April ESEA in Ohio In 2012, our state applied for and received a waiver from provisions of No Child Left Behind.
LEA Self-Assessment LEASA: Presentations:
Office of School Turnaround Center for Accountability and Improvement, Ohio Department of Education 25 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio
National Association of State Directors of Special Education Tuesday, October 23, 2012 Michael Yudin and Deb Delisle.
Introductions. 5 of Anything Part 1- Take turns at your table telling the other team members each person’s 5 favorite movies. Part 2- As a group select.
OSEP-Funded TA and Data Centers David Guardino, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Diane Mugford – Federal Accountability, ADAM Russ Keglovits – Measurement and Accountability, ADAM Renewing Nevada’s ESEA Waiver Flexibility Request.
NYSED Policy Update Pat Geary Statewide RSE-TASC Meeting May 2013.
New Jersey DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Overview and Implications for New Jersey Peter Shulman & Jill Hulnick Deputy Commissioner.
NORTH CAROLINA ESEA Flexibility Request Globally Competitive Students (GCS 1) 1Wednesday, February 1, 2012.
Time for Change: Examining Utah Data Relating to Student Performance
What is “Annual Determination?”
Public School Monitoring Roadmap
Office of Special Education
Kristin Reedy, Co-Director June 24, 2016
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
Kansas Leads the World in the Success of Each Student.
G-CASE Fall Conference November 14, 2013 Savannah, Ga
Early Childhood and Family Outcomes
Overview of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
Christina Kasprzak Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
IDEA State Monitoring and General Supervision
Using Data to Build LEA Capacity to Improve Outcomes
IDEA State Monitoring and General Supervision
Presentation transcript:

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Overview of Results Driven Accountability Assuring Compliance and Improving Results August 2014

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 2 From the very beginning in 1975 with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (also known as Public Law ), the Federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has required states to focus our resources on procedural compliance through rigorous monitoring efforts and extensive reporting procedures.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 3 State Monitoring and General Supervision under IDEA  Core Concepts  Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities  Ensuring that LEAs are meeting the procedural requirements under IDEA  Monitoring LEAs  quantifiable indicators in priority areas - compliance indicators and coordinated program reviews  qualitative indicators to measure performance

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 4 Reflecting on Outcomes  In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education recognized that the educational outcomes of children and youth with disabilities have not improved as much as expected even with intensive Federal regulatory oversight and significant funding provided to address closing achievement gaps through programs such as No Child Left Behind and IDEA.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 5 USED Is Shifting the Balance  OSEP announced movement toward prioritizing improvement of outcomes for students with disabilities  Movement from a one-size-fits-all, compliance-focused approach to general supervision to a more balanced system that looks at results and outcomes.  OSEP’s vision of Results Driven Accountability (RDA) – all components of accountability will be aligned in a manner that best supports States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities, and their families.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 6 Core Principles of RDA  OSEP is developing the RDA system in partnership with stakeholders.  The RDA system is transparent and understandable to States and the general public, especially individuals with disabilities and their families.  The RDA system drives improved outcomes for all children and youth with disabilities regardless of their age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location.  The RDA system ensures the protection of the individual rights of each child or youth with a disability and their families, regardless of his/her age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location.  The RDA system provides differentiated incentives, supports, and interventions based on each State’s unique strengths, progress, challenges, and needs.  The RDA system encourages States to direct their resources to where they can have the greatest positive impact on outcomes and the protection of individual rights for all children and youth with disabilities, and minimizes State burden and duplication of effort.  The RDA system is responsive to the needs and expectations of the ultimate consumers (i.e., children and youth with disabilities and their families) as they identify them.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 7 Priorities of RDA  To help close the achievement gap for students with disabilities  To move away from a one-size-fits-all, compliance- focused approach  To craft a more balanced system that looks at how well students are being educated in addition to continued efforts to protect their rights

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education  Children with disabilities are part of, not separate from, the general education population. Thus, special education accountability should strengthen and compliment other ED reform initiatives, including ESEA flexibility.  An emphasis on compliance over results in special education fails to acknowledge those states where children with disabilities are achieving and being prepared for a range of college and career options appropriate to their individual needs and preferences.  The accountability system under the IDEA should provide meaningful information to the public regarding the effectiveness of states and local educational agencies in educating children with disabilities.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 9 Two RDA Initiatives  Annual review of all indicator data for both compliance and performance results from the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR).  New State Determinations  State Systemic Improvement Plan  New SPP/APR Indicator  Specific focus on how State and LEAs are accountable jointly to improve results and demonstrate growth over time.  Requires States and LEAs to establish collaborative models using evidence-based practices that will address improving educational results and student learning outcomes.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 10 New Annual State Determinations  Compliance Matrix  Data validity and reliability  Rates of compliance  Timeliness of correction of noncompliance  Special conditions, if any  Results Driven Accountability Matrix  Statewide assessment – 4 th and 8 th grade  participation rates and proficiency gaps  4 th and 8 th graders  NAEP participation and scoring – 4 th and 8 th grade  Future measures: growth of proficiency rates on statewide assessments, graduation rates

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

15 Results Focused Accountability in MA  MA is an outcome-oriented state  The system for making special education determinations is aligned with the State’s accountability system  Outcome data informs state special education determinations  Improving positive outcomes for students with disabilities is critical

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education States report 17 SPP/APR indicators – delete three reporting data submitted to USED in other reports (compliants, hearing timelines, data reporting compliance) First district determinations of need for special education technical assistance or intervention Includes focus on performance Compliance considerations also incorporated OSEP suspends state visits Announces RDA concept First MA SPP/APR report - 20 compliance and performance indicators District-level public reporting First SPP/APR State determinations based 100% on compliance rates and monitoring FEDERAL MASSACHUSETTS First full alignment of districts’ accountability status (performance focussed) and special education determinations Spring: SSIP phase timeline released (single SPP/APR Indicator) June: RDA announcement to Chief State School Officers June: State determinations weighted 50% compliance / 50% performance Phase I of SSIP process begins with stakeholder discussions, data review, and infrastructure analylsis July: RDA Leadership Series 2003: MA launches its accountability system based on performance

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Phase I: Analysis Data analysis Infrastructure analysis State-identified measureable result(s) for children with disabilities (SIMR) – using one or more performance indicators Selection of coherent improvement strategies Theory of action Baseline data and analysis report due April 1, Phase II: Plan Infrastructure development Support LEA implementation of evidence-based practices to improve student outcomes Evaluation Due February 1, 2016 Phase III: Implementation and Evaluation Continue implementation Report results of ongoing evaluation and make revisions to the SSIP Due February 1, SPP/APR Indicator 17 Comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable multi-year plan for improving results for children with disabilities. The New Indicator: State Systemic Improvement Plan

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 18 Universally Designed Social Emotional Supports for Young Children with Disabilities Stakeholder Input Data and Infrastructure Analysis Research Preparing and Planning for the SSIP We are learning from stakeholders, data analysis, and research that we need to design/implement social/emotional supports for young children with disabilities.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 19 Universally Designed Social Emotional Supports for Young Children Improve K Readiness Improve Disciplinary Practices and Reduce Removals Support Appropriate Identification and Eligibility Improve Engagement in School Improve Performance on Statewide Assessments Improve Literacy Development Promote Inclusive Education This will improve seven additional outcomes.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education 20 The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and its Office of Special Education Planning and Policy Development seek to strengthen the Commonwealth’s public education system so that every student, and most especially every student with disabilities, is prepared to succeed in postsecondary education, compete in the global economy, and understand the rights and responsibilities of American citizens, and in so doing, to close all proficiency gaps.