Improving
Special Education
Services(ISES)
Pre-Meeting Information
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
November 2012
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Resources Project
 CDE Contract Administrator: Martin Miller
 CDE Contract Monitor: Linda Wyatt
 Contractor: Center for Prevention and Early
Intervention (CPEI) at WestEd
 WestEd Project Director: Dona Meinders
Improving Special Education
Services(ISES)
 The purpose of the biannual ISES meetings are to
bring California stakeholders together to review and
analyze the Annual Performance Report (APR) data
that informs the State Performance Plan (SPP)
improvement activities.
 Last December CDE initiated a two-year planning
process that will create more meaningful
discussions of data, needs, and priorities.
 This process will culminate in the improvement
plans for the FFY 2012 SPP and APR (due Feb 2014.)
State Plan Process (SPP)
The November pre-meeting and December ISES
meeting will focus on tasks 1 & 2 of the process.
1. Analyze Information
2. Identify Needs and Priorities
3. Develop Improvement Plans
4. Identify Resources
November ISES - Pre-Meeting
 The purpose of the pre-meeting is to give ISES
stakeholders an opportunity to see the state LRE data
and prepare for the development of needs
statements that will be the focus at the December
ISES meeting.
 Participants will learn about the activities of the LRE
Resources Project with a focus on input from the
June ISES meeting.
 With the data and information provided, ISES
stakeholders will be better prepared to discuss needs
and issues related to the discussion group topics.
ISES Discussion Groups
 The purpose of the ISES discussion groups for the
December meeting is to generate and evaluate
needs statements in each of the of the areas in
preparation for the California Department of
Education (CDE) to identify priorities and prepare
a detailed improvement plan for the APR and SPP
due in February 2014 (FFY 2012).
LRE/ISES Discussion Group
Each discussion group will:
1. Provide an overview of California data including
trends and national comparisons.
2. Develop needs statements for the topic.
3. Evaluate the needs statements based on a matrix
that will assist the stakeholders in determining
impact and likelihood of meeting the need.
4. All discussion groups must have at least one needs
statement relevant to parent engagement and
personnel development.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
“The LRE provision guarantees a student’s right to
be educated in the setting most like that for
peers without disabilities in which the student
can be successful with appropriate supports
provided.”
Friend & Bursuck (2011). Including Students with
Special Needs
IDEA Part B LRE Indicators
Indicator 5:
Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
 Inside the regular classroom 80% or more of the
day;
 Inside the regular classroom less than 40% of the
day;
 Served in separate schools, residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital placements.
California LRE Data
Indicator
Percent of
Students
2009–2010
2009–2010 Target
Target Met
5.A. In general
education 80% or
more
51.4
At least 68 percent
No
5.B. In general
education 40% or
less
22.7
No more than 14
percent
No
No more than 3.9
percent
No
5.C. Served in
separate schools or
facilities
4.60
10
ISES LRE Input
 Targets are established for the federal mandate of the SPP
Indicator 5 –Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
 California has not met its LRE targets for several years.
 The ISES stakeholders’ group has identified LRE as a high
priority area.
 At the December ISES meeting, the stakeholders will
develop needs statements for LRE after examining the
statewide LRE data.
 Using a rubric stakeholders will rate the needs statement
on the impact and the likelihood of implementation of
each needs statement.
ISES Recommendations – June 2012
LRE Resources Project
1. Connect higher and lower performing districts by having
higher performing districts mentor lower performing
districts.
2. Post information and descriptions of successful practices
on the LRE website.
3. Maintain website with rich resources.
4. Write “stories” about model sites including visitations
and observations, including , options to drill down for
more information and post on LRE Web site.
5. Use Focused Monitoring Technical Assistance
Consultants (FMTA) to link resources to compliance.
ISES Recommendations – June 2012
Future Actions LRE Resources Project
1. Share data and information at conferences to showcase
– ACSA, CARS, CASP, CEC, TASH, CSESA, CSBA, Cal
Council, State SELPA, PTI’s (parent groups).
2. Use List Serve and Constant Contact to communicate.
3. Share examples of effective use of student data and
how to use data to track student progress.
Future Actions LRE Resources Project
continued
4. Post recorded webcasts/panel discussions about
best practices targeted to SELPA directors, district
directors, principals, assistant principals, program
specialists, coordinators.
5. Produce short videos and webinars and post on
website.
6. Produce a series of webinars that highlight high
percentage local education agencies (LEAs).
7. Include family partnership highlights in each
model site description.
14
LRE Resources Project Tasks
 Task 1 - Identify high and low percentage LRE
Districts
 Task 2 - Infuse LRE into Educational Benefit Process
 Task 3 - Develop guidance for data collection for LRE
 Task 4 – Select LRE Technical Assistance Providers
 Task 5 – Redesign LRE Web site
15
Update on LRE Resources Project
Activities
 Year 1 high percentage site case studies are being
developed and will be posted on the LRE web site.
 Proposed questions which target LRE in the
Educational Benefit Process and informational
training slides have been developed.
 Descriptors of the LRE indicator data from other
states have been identified and will be shared with
CDE and ISES.
 LRE Web site redesign is in progress.
Thank You !
 Thank you for your participation in this pre-meeting
preparation event!
 We will use your input today to prepare an inclusive
and effective meeting of the Improving Special
Education Stakeholders (ISES) in Sacramento on
December 3, 2012!
Lessons From Successful Districts
• Inclusion and access to the core curriculum,
• Collaboration between special education and
general education teachers
• Continuous assessment and use of leveled
interventions
• Targeted professional development
• The use of explicit direct instruction.
American Institutes for Research, Jan 2011
18