Susan Langendonk Susan Bradley Dawn Anderson Robert Wall Emerson.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Michigan Severity Rating Scales:
Advertisements

The Individual Health Plan Essential to achieve educational equality for students with health management needs Ensures access to an education for students.
Special Education Referral and Evaluation Process Presented by Lexington Special Education Staff February 1, 2013.
VB-MAPP Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program
1 Evaluation Reviews and Reevaluations Macomb ISD Special Education Management Services August, 2006.
Understanding the IEP Process
Top ten non compliance findings from the Office for Exceptional Children from their Special Education Onsite Reviews.
August 15, 2012 Fontana Unified School District Superintendent, Cali Olsen-Binks Associate Superintendent, Oscar Dueñas Director, Human Resources, Mark.
Beginning-of-Grade 3 Test Assessment Guide Training Fall 2013.
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training Guide
1 Common IEP Errors and Legal Requirements. 2 Today’s Agenda Parent Survey Results Procedural Compliance Self Assessment Results.
Michigan Orientation & Mobility Severity Rating Scales: Tools Supported by Data Susan Langendonk Susan Bradley Dawn Anderson.
Monitoring Accommodations in South Dakota Linda Turner Special Education Programs.
March, What does the new law require?  20% State student growth data (increases to 25% upon implementation of value0added growth model)  20%
Teachers directing the work of paraprofessionals
ECC Collaborative Division Block Day July 18, 2012.
Bibb County School District Program for Exceptional Children Paired Zone Meeting November 7 and 9, 2011.
 Special Education is mandated by federal law and we have to do what they say.
Standardization and Test Development Nisrin Alqatarneh MSc. Occupational therapy.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction The Role of the State Program Guidelines in the Education.
Special Education Law If you are not in compliance with the law you can lose your teaching license and be subjected to lawsuits! The link below will take.
1. 2 Roots of Ontario Legislation and Policy Bill 82 (1980), An Amendment to the Education Act: –Universal access: right of all children, condition notwithstanding,
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together.
South Western School District Differentiated Supervision Plan DRAFT 2010.
Instructional Plan | Slide 1 AET/515 Instructional Plan December 17, 2012 Kevin Houser.
An Overview of Special Education Teacher Cadets, D.F.H.S.
Special Education Law for the General Education Administrator Charter Schools Institute Webinar October 24, 2012.
 The Pennsylvania National Agenda (PANA) committee, with the help of the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) and the support.
COMPLIANT IEPs: Using Data and the IEP Process to make Appropriate Placement Decisions Cobb County School District DaVida Alston, Lisa Geiger, D’Nena Mock.
Data Driven Decision Making Across All Content Areas WI PBIS Network Summer Leadership Conference Rachel Saladis Lynn Johnson The Wisconsin RtI Center/Wisconsin.
Individual Education Plans 101 DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLIANT AND INSTRUCTIONALLY RELEVANT IEP COURTNEY WARD NOVEMBER 2010.
TEAM Coordinating Committee Training (TCC).  Introductions  Mission of the TEAM Program  Design of the TEAM Program  Overview of the Module Process.
What you need to know about changes in state requirements for Teval plans.
INTODUCTION TO ASSESSMENT INTODUCTION TO ASSESSMENT Chapter One.
Pathfinder Parent Center South Valley Special Education Unit John Porter, Director
1 Building Collaborative Relationships to Improve Student Learning Presented by Auburn Montgomery School of Education.
Consultant Advance Research Team. Outline UNDERSTANDING M&E DATA NEEDS PEOPLE, PARTNERSHIP AND PLANNING 1.Organizational structures with HIV M&E functions.
Determining Type and Amount of Itinerant TVI Service Using the VISSIT Rona Pogrund, Ph.D. Perkins Webinar November 17,
Eric M. Roubion EDLD 871. Online Teacher Professional Development Standard F.
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training January 2010.
CVI and the IEP Teri Turgeon Education Director Community Programs Perkins School for the Blind.
1 NCEXTEND1 Alternate Assessment with Alternate Achievement Standards Conference on Exceptional Children November 17-18, 2008 NCDPI Division of Accountability.
A Child with Deaf-Blindness ECEA Disability Category, Definition and Eligibility Criteria March 2013.
Chapter 2 The Assessment Process. Two Types of Decisions Legal Decisions The student is determined to have a disability. The disability has an adverse.
Overview of the IEP as a tool in order to access, participate, and make progress in the general curriculum 1.
1 Explicit Instruction: Delivery of Instruction – Providing Appropriate Independent Practice 35.
Michigan Severity Rating Scales Vision Services Severity Rating Scales (VSSRS) VSSRS+ (for students with additional needs) Orientation & Mobility Severity.
Colorado Accommodation Manual Part I Section I Guidance Section II Five-Step Process Welcome! Colorado Department of Education Exceptional Student Services.
Exceptional Children Program “Serving Today’s Students” Student Assistance Team.
The IEP: Progress Monitoring Process. Session Agenda Definition Rationale Prerequisites The Steps of Progress Monitoring 1.Data Collection –Unpack Existing.
Special Education Tier 4 Levels of Support Inclusive Services Educational Support Services 2015.
Teacher Roles and Responsibilities in the IEP Process Amanda Strong Hilsmier EDUC 559.
And Amendments to the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Effective December 8, 2010.
Verification Guidelines for Children with Visual Impairments
Verification Guidelines for Children with Disabilities
IEP Basics for Parents and Families
Common Core State Standards
VISSIT.
2019 Local School District Charter Application Process
Parent-Teacher Partnerships for Student Success
A Child with Deaf-Blindness and Eligibility Criteria
WA-AIM 1% Participation Cap
Standards-based Individualized Education Program (IEP) Module One: Introduction SBIEP Module one: Introduction - The standards-based reform movement has.
Assistive Technology Implementation
The Transition Planning Process
New Assessments and Accommodations
A Child with Multiple Disabilities and Eligibility Criteria
Assessing Students With Disabilities: IDEA and NCLB Working Together
PI-34 (It is 3-4, not 34).
Presentation transcript:

Susan Langendonk Susan Bradley Dawn Anderson Robert Wall Emerson

2 Adapted from the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania model beginning in 1995 Published and disseminated by the Michigan Department of Education – Special Education Services Michigan Severity Rating Scales History and Development

3 Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale (OMSRS) Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale for students with Additional Needs (OMSRS+)

4 MDE-LIO Orientation and Mobility Task Force formed in November 2007 Revising Michigan Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale-Task Force’s first project

5 Web search indicated OMSRS was being used and referenced in documents in several other states Referred to in O&M university preparation programs MDE-LIO Task Force did an on-line survey in March 2008

6 Field Tested in Michigan Article in AER Journal Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness Winter 2009 Updated OMSRS and added OMSRS+ to MDE-LIO and TSBVI websites November 2008

7 Internationally recognized Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI) Colorado Department of Education Guidelines for Caseload Formula Massachusetts Assoc. of Educators of VI Students Calgary, Alberta, Canada Scholarly references

What they are: 8 A data collection tool A guide based on best practices Guideline for IEP team service discussion

What they are not: 9 Not an assessment Not a severity of disability but a severity of student’s need for services Not a pre-determiner of service Not the only data source

10

11

12

13 When Do They Complete a Scale?

14 Factors Considered When Updating (n=53): Change in vision/motor skill 25 To verify service time18 Change in program/staff/campus14 Annual caseload analysis, IEP 14 Tri-annual assessment 6 Assess current level, initial assessment 5 When asked for 5 Student needs 4 Establish eligibility 4 Student not progressing 2 Depends on situation

15 With Whom They Complete the Scale

16 Do External Factors Make a Difference?

17 What Are Those Factors (n=35)? Academic level, age 18 Parental involvement12 Paraprofessional, classroom support 6 Medical fragility, additional disabilities 6 Goals & objectives, expectations 6 Appropriate travel skills, independent 5 Classroom placement, accommodations 4 Involvement of other therapists 3 New environments 2 Service delivery model

18 Is It Used for Caseload Analysis?

19 How Important is it in Caseload Analysis?

20 Scenarios Several students were described for both the O&MSRS and the O&MSRS+. Visual status, academic setting and other characteristics that are crucial to determining the severity of need for services were outlined. Respondents were asked to fill out the Scales, then answer questions.

21 O&MSRS: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

22 O&MSRS: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

23 O&MSRS: Comparison of Frequency of Service Time on Survey to Own Caseload

24 O&MSRS: How Well do Service Times Match Instructional Needs?

25 O&MSRS: If Service Can't Happen

26 O&MSRS: Overall Usefulness & Validity

27 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Severity of Need Profile No changes; get more people to use it 9 Reword portions; correct spacing2 Confusion on how to score Profound in level of vision2 Split OMSRS to OM SRS 1 Specific number for each category1 Distinguish between direct and indirect time1 Service times vary by need1

28 No changes 9 Student opportunities & experiences3 Time traveled to teach isn’t adequately accounted for2 Split OMSRS to OM SRS 1 Specific number for each category1 Distinguish between direct and indirect time1 Service times vary by need1 Consider only adding to score1 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Contributing Factors

29 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Recommendations for Services Develop reasonable caseload size 2 Add section where discrepancy between SRS rec.& actual rec. can be explained 2 Frequency & time recs. should use same units1 Link lesson length to lesson content area 1 Add option for 2-4 times / month1 Make language more approachable1

30 OMSRS Suggestions for Change: Positive Impacts on Services Showed the IEP team the rationale for services 12 Justified a new hire / prevented layoff 8 Explained job to supervisor 4 Helps with consistency 4 Gives parents timeline reference 1 Actually validated a decrease in staff need 1 Gives parents a means of “proving” need for O&M services 1 Caused dissention among professionals, parents & administrators 1

31 O&MSRS+: How Well Are Areas Of Concern Covered?

32 O&MSRS+: How Well do Contributing Factors Address +/- of Service?

33 O&MSRS+: Comparison of Frequency of Service on Survey to Own Caseload

34 Scenarios: Usefulness of O&MSRS+ for service time

35 O&MSRS+: If Service Can't Happen

36 O&MSRS+: Overall Usefulness & Validity

37 OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change: Severity of Need Profile None 6 Wording can be misleading Add section for recommendations other than from the SRS Add a CVI component Disagree about level of supervision for safe travel – discriminates against severe disabilities

38 OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change: Contributing Factors None 5 Teamwork in deciding times in all areas Student experiences and opportunities Add option to list medications that might impact instruction

39 OMSRS+ Suggestions for Change: Recommendations for Services None 6 Compliance with instruction seems to inflate service time

40 OMSRS+: Positive Impact on Services Showed IEP team rationale for service 6 Helps with consistency2 Justify new hire, prevent layoffs2 Showed need for services for multi handicapped child

 Reliability (precision) Respondents overwhelmingly identified the scales as measuring the significant factors to be considered in O&M  Validity O&M SRS above 90% accuracy O&M SRS+ showed 84% accuracy 41

42 Service information from the Michigan Severity Rating Scales Additional hours per week needed for support Hours per week for travel

43

44 MDE-LIO – Michigan Severity Rating Scales: Caseload Analysis Resources:

John C. Austin President Casandra E. Ulbrich Vice President Nancy Danhof Secretary Marianne Yared McGuire Treasurer Richard Zeile NASBE Delegate Kathleen N. Straus Daniel Varner Eileen Lappin Weiser Rick Snyder, Governor Michael P. Flanagan Superintendent of Public Instruction 45