1. STATEWIDE SPECIAL EDUCATION TASK FORCE TRANSFORMING SPECIAL EDUCATION Maureen O’Leary Burness Dr. Vicki L. Barber Kimberly Salomonson

2. PURPOSE OF TODAY Provide Update Share Current Status Seek ACSA Feedback

3. PURPOSE OF THE TASK FORCE Statewide Task Force charged with developing a policy and implementation plan to guide California’s transformation of programs and outcomes for students with disabilities

4. TASK FORCE FORMATION Initiated 2013 Over 200 Applicants Selected 34 Members

5. LEADERSHIP TEAM SBE Dr. Michael Kirst CTCDr. Linda Darling-Hammond CDERich Zeiger Chair Dr. Carl Cohn Executive Directors Maureen O’Leary Burness Dr. Vicki L. Barber

6. EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS SBEKaren Stapf-Walters Brooks Allen Beth Rice CTCMary Sandy Teri Clark CDEDr. Fred Balcom

7. STAKEHOLDER GROUPS REPRESENTED Parents Teachers (General Education and Special Education) Principals Superintendents Special Education Administrators SELPA Administrators Higher Education Private Providers Charter Schools

8. TASK FORCE REPRESENTATION Geographical Age/Grade Spans Disabilities Governance Structures Reflective of California’s Diversity

9. FUNDING FOR THE TASK FORCE Foundation Support: Schwab Foundation Stuart Foundation Packard Foundation Kabcenell Foundation Fiscal Agent: San Mateo County Office of Education

10. TASK FORCE INPUT

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS Hearings Held in February and March, 2014 Los Angeles – Southwest SELPA San Mateo County Riverside State School for the Deaf San Diego County Sacramento Approximately 200 People Attended Public Input at Task Force Meeting

12. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT WEB SITE San Mateo County Office of Education Written Information Submitted Survey Monkey Methods List Serve PERSONAL CONTACT Attending Meetings Reaching Out E-mails Task Force Meetings

13. TASK FORCE MEETINGS December, 2013 – San Mateo County March, 2014 – Riverside State School for the Deaf May, 2014 – Sacramento September, 2014 – Sacramento December, 2014 - Sacramento

14. SUB-COMMITTEES Educator PreparationDr. Ann Halvorsen Evidence Based PracticesMatt Navo Assessment and AccountabilityDr. David W. Gordon Early LearningSam Neustadt FinanceMary Samples

15. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Appreciation to: Stanford University – Research Support – Daniela Sahar Berman WestEd CDE – Additional Resources Provided Business and Administration Steering Committee (BASC) Dr. Thomas Hehir – Review of Materials

16. CONCEPTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS

17. OVERARCHING THEME Unified system, grounded in expertise, responsive to students' needs, and focused on results. Special education is supposed to bring the right kind of expertise to bear to meet students' needs.

18. OVERARCHING THEMES 1. Reform educator preparation, including support for retooling within districts (including Charters and Charter Management Organizations), Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs), and County Offices of Education (COEs) by the infusion of money, time, and content resources. · 2. Revision of roles and responsibilities for implementing best practices including multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), project based learning, co-teaching/inclusion, blended learning options, and the support needed for replication. ·

19. OVERARCHING THEMES 3. Realignment of California Department of Education (CDE) oversight into a coherent meaningful system of brokering support across multiple divisions within the agency to districts (including Charters and Charter Management Organizations), SELPAs, and COEs. Also modeling a unified system by increasing collaboration and coordination with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 4. Assessment and accountability reforms including access to assessment, alignment of mental health services and early childhood initiatives under the umbrella of one entity. ·

20. OVERARCHING THEMES 5. Increased access and equity of service availability is needed for Students with Disabilities (SWD) prior to Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and Kindergarten. · 6. A set of clear fiscal policy recommendations and reforms that support the transformative changes described in the rest of the report.

21. EDUCATOR PREPARATION Preparing Educators and Credentialing Issues Common Foundation General Educator Preparation Special Educator Preparation Professional Development Educators – Teachers, Administrators, Psychologists, Related Service Providers

22. EDUCATOR PREPARATION Reforms are needed to ensure that general education teachers and principals acquire the expertise they need to appropriately serve Students with Disabilities in a general education setting, with supports as needed. Special education teachers and other providers have the expertise they need to ensure that their instruction is aligned with the Common Core State Standards.

23. TEACHER SHORTAGES How do we ensure we have adequate number of highly qualified educators?

24. EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICES Incentives to ensure that successful evidence-based practices to improve student outcomes are implemented in school districts, county offices, and charter schools. More emphasis should be given to improving outcomes even while proper procedures and legal processes are followed.

25. POLICY ROAD MAP Moving toward implementation of : Response to Intervention, Multi-tiered systems of support, Positive behavior intervention and supports, Universal Design for Learning Career Technical Educational Opportunities Technology as a Teaching and Learning Tool

26. UNIQUE POPULATIONS AND OTHER ISSUES Serving Low Incidence Populations Meeting the Needs of Moderate to Severe Populations English Language Learners Students Requiring Mental Health Services Addressing Disproportionality

27. SANGER UNIFIED … A JOURNEY

28. WHERE IS SANGER?

29. OUR SCHOOLS 14 elementary schools (2 charter) 1 intermediate school 1 comprehensive high school 3 alternative education schools, and an adult school. 1 charter home-school program (K-12)

30. WE ARE In Fresno County enrollment 11,200: 76% in poverty 24% designated as ELs 8% Special Education experiencing success with ALL our students

31. WE WERE the home of 400 unhappy teachers in PI status facing serious sanctions faced with tough decisions

32. We lacked focus and clear direction  Curriculum – Independent Operators  Standards – What I like to teach vs. What I am supposed to teach  Assessment – No measurement tool except for state testing post-mortem.  Support - offered primarily through special education. You had to fail to access.

33. WE STARTED Slowly Simply Focused By implementing few initiatives and going deep

34. We had 3 Guiding Principles: Hope is not a strategy. Don’t blame the kids. It is about student learning. Instructional focus on PLC/RTI/EDI

35. We experienced success API 2004API 2012 District599822 Centerville675853 Del Rey532 – PI 4801 Fairmont677 – PI 4 891 Jackson624 850 Jefferson341/531 843 John Wash744 893 Lincoln536 – PI 3 784 Lone Star643849 Madison644809 Quail Lake756955 SACS721907 Wilson533 – PI 4714 WAMS549 – PI 4839 Sanger High592786 SPECIAL EDUCATION566699

38. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES WHY PLCs?? We were not sharing our expertise We needed to integrate our knowledge and practice We needed to stop working in silos We needed interdependency

39. FOUR KEY QUESTIONS OF A PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY What do we want our students to learn? How will we know they have learned it? How will we respond when learning did not take place? How do we respond when learning has already occurred?

40. TIER III Intensive Diagnostic & prescriptive teaching for students who demonstrate the need for ongoing intervention. 1% - 5% of students Individual Students Assessment-Based High Intensity Procedures Individual Focus TIER II Strategic Students who don’t show progress w/ regular instructional intervention receive more individualized instruction. 5% - 15% of students Some Students (at-risk) High Efficiency Rapid Response Individual or small groups. TIER I Universal Interventions As teachers introduce instruction, they monitor student progress. Additional help and guidance is provided by the teacher from time to time. 80% - 90% of students Typically classroom based. All settings, all students. Preventative, proactive intervention. Frequency, Intensity, Duration Response to Intervention Context for Our Conversation A School-Wide Systems for Student Success

41. Fluidity Between Tiers 41 Tier IIa (Every 2 weeks Progress Monitor) – Tier I Failure – DIBELS Benchmark & Previous Placement – Program Based on Needs of the Group Tier IIb (Weekly Progress Monitor) – Tier IIa Failure – Based on 8-Points (not necessarily weekly) – Paperwork – Procedural Checklist, RISH, Progress Monitor Sheet – Change: Program (Skill), Setting, Time, and/or Ratio Tier III (Weekly Progress Monitor) – Tier IIb Failure – Based on 8-Points (not necessarily weekly) – Continue Paperwork – Change: Program (Skill), Setting, Time, and/or Ratio

42. RtI Board CST Scores – DPA Scores – Transfers (non/voluntary) – English Learner

43. Response to Intervention Literacy 43 Tier ITier II (a/b)Tier III BenchmarkStrategic HighStrategic LowIntensive HighIntensive LowIntensive Interventionist Classroom Teacher Intervention Teacher RSP Teacher & Paraprofessional SettingClassroom Room 13 Room 2 Grouping23:111:112:15:1 4:1 Time 45 min M-F except Min Days Program Orton Gillingham (K) Guided Reading (1-5) SRA (2-3) Read Naturally (K-1) Keep on Reading (3-5) Levels of Comp (3-5) Orton Gillingham (K) Guided Reading (1-5) SRA (2-3) Read Naturally (K-1) Keep on Reading (3-5) Levels of Comp (3-5) Orton Gillingham (K) Guided Reading (1-5) SRA (2-3) Read Naturally (K-1) Keep on Reading (3-5) Levels of Comp (3-5) Orton Gillingham (K) Guided Reading (1-5) SRA (2-3) Read Naturally (K-1) Keep on Reading (3-5) Levels of Comp (3-5) Orton Gillingham (K) Guided Reading (1-5) SRA (2-3) Read Naturally (K-1) Keep on Reading (3-5) Levels of Comp (3-5) Orton Gillingham (K) Guided Reading (1-5) SRA (2-3) Read Naturally (K-1) Keep on Reading (3-5) Levels of Comp (3-5) Literacy Skills Phonemic Awareness Phonics Decoding Comprehension Vocabulary Phonemic Awareness Phonics Decoding Comprehension Vocabulary Phonemic Awareness Phonics Decoding Comprehension Vocabulary Phonemic Awareness Phonics Decoding Comprehension Vocabulary Phonemic Awareness Phonics Decoding Comprehension Vocabulary Phonemic Awareness Phonics Decoding Comprehension Vocabulary Progress Monitor Every 6 WeeksEvery 4 Weeks Every 2 Weeks Every Week (DIBELS PM, Program) Additional Assessments  DIBELS Benchmark 3x year  AR STAR 3x year  AR STAR when needed for ZPD  DPA Benchmark  SMART Goals w/ Common Assess  DIBELS Benchmark 3x year  AR STAR 3x year  AR STAR when needed for ZPD  BPST for baseline & when needed for monitoring  DPA Benchmark  SMART Goals w/ Common Assess  DIBELS Benchmark 3x year  AR STAR 3x year  AR STAR when needed for ZPD  BPST for baseline & when needed for monitoring  DPA Benchmark  SMART Goals w/ Common Assess  DIBELS Benchmark  AR STAR 3x year  DPA Benchmark  SMART Goals w/ Common Assess  DIBELS Benchmark  Read Well Unit Progress Monitor  AR STAR 3x year  DPA Benchmark  SMART Goals w/ Common Assess  DIBELS Benchmark  AR STAR 3x year  DPA Benchmark  SMART Goals w/ Common Assess

44. Master Schedule

45. ROBUST RTI FRAMEWORK Allowed us to determine eligibility through RTI Examine our Tier I instruction more thoroughly Create capacity of all teachers to analyze student progress data Create better common assessments, formative assessments, SPED goals, scaffolding, and access for ALL students. We now are shifting our focus again….

46. EDIEL EmphasisPLC Development Curriculum Enhancement and Training Common Intent Aligned Goals and Objectives District Progress Assessment with reliable reporting Focus on LRE PHILOSOPHY Leadership Increased instructional competency, focus, and understanding by leadership at all levels

47. Literacy MTSS UDL PLC Common Core PD: Gen Ed with SPED Common Core Implementation Integrated academic/ behavior ed. Support across content areas New assessment and accountability for ALL INCLUSION PHILOSOPHY Leadership Increased literacy competency, focus on EL, and SPED understanding by leadership at all levels

48. INTEGRATED & INCLUSIVELY DESIGNED ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION Special education and general education work together to meet students needs Design lessons that are accessible to ALL Meet students where they are Allow for multiple ways to demonstrate learning Set goals with students Monitor and regularly measure student growth Offer support; varied time, intensity, levels of difficulty

49. INTEGRATED SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING & SUPPORT PBIS Restorative Justice Olweus SAP CARE Team Second Step Solution Focused Brief Counseling

50. INTEGRATED FAMILY & COMMUNITY Parent Universities Community Schools Parents as Partners: collaborative decision making Facilitated IEP’s

51. WHAT WE’VE LEARNED You must change the focus from the needs of adults to the educational needs of children. Educational excellence is expensive. It requires targeted use and commitment of all available resources. You must develop a crystal clear vision focused on student learning. Competent and informed instructional leadership at the school site level is critical to improving student achievement.

52. WHAT WE’VE LEARNED Reliable and valid student achievement data collected on a regular basis is essential to informing and guiding instructional and district decisions. You must have a willingness to confront deficiencies. No one of us is as good as all of us. Collaborative teams are much more effective than individuals working in isolation. Every child, every day, must know that there is an adult who cares about them and believes in them.

53. Just Remember! Keep it simple… Be open to change… Work collaboratively… Don’t let kids fail

54. ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY A bold new assessment system is being implemented, the State should ensure that the needs of SWDs - for both the mildly and more significantly disabled populations - are appropriately addressed.

55. SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENTS Alternatives to CAPA and CMA Appropriate Adaptations and Modifications Results Driven Accountability (RDA)

56. ACCOUNTABILITY AND STATE ALIGNMENT Alignment of Data Bases Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)

57. EARLY LEARNING Equity of Access LRE Implications Single Set of Standards

58. EARLY LEARNING Transition Between Part B and Part C Teacher/Educator and Administrator Qualifications and Preparation Mental Health Services

59. FUNDING ISSUES Special education funding needs to be updated, consistent with the reform in general education funding that occurred with the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), including linkages to the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) and rubrics.

60. FUNDING ISSUES Target Rate Adjustments Funding for Infant and Pre-School Special Education Transportation Facilities General Education Support Systems – Multi- Tiered Systems of Support Federal Funding – Meeting the Commitment Maintenance of Effort Flexibility – Medi-Cal

61. FUNDING Access to Technology Alternative Dispute Resolution Deficits – Ongoing Appropriations Other Alignment Issues – Congruence Between Program and Fiscal Language Statewide Data Bases Streamlining

62. WRITTEN REPORT

63. WRITERS Single Voice Unified System – Not Silos Cross & Joftus

64. TIMELINE Task Force Meeting – December 2, 2014 January - February, 2015 Next Steps Policy Implications Legislative Agenda Role of ACSA

65. QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS?

66. THANK YOU