We Lead in an Age of Effectiveness
History of Change in Special Education
1990 to 2010
NOW
1970 to 1990
EFFECTIVENESS
Results
1960’s
Before 1950
ACCESS
SYSTEMS ACCOUNTABILITY
and BUILD
CHANGE
CAPACITY
Outcomes
SHAME
FEAR
I AM
I AM SEEN
I AM A
SPECIAL
CITIZEN
I BELONG AND
MEANINGFUL LIFE
I AM A CONTRIBUTING
MEMBER OF SOCIETY
NOT SEEN
(Mark Wolak Ed.D, President, Board of School Superintendents,
History of Change in Special Education)
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY
IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
Ann Moore, State Director
Office of Special Education (OSE)
April 2013
What Is IDEA?
• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• Federal law that guarantees a free, appropriate
public education (FAPE) to each child with a
disability
• Governs how states and public agencies provide
early intervention, special education, and related
services
• Approximately 7 million infants, toddlers,
children, and youth with disabilities across the nation
are eligible under IDEA.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
3
Focus on
Procedural Compliance
From the very beginning in 1975 with the
passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (also known as Public Law 94-142),
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.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
4
IDEA 2004
When the IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, each state was required to
have in place a performance plan to evaluate the state's
implementation of Part B and to describe how the state will improve
such implementation.
•Based upon these regulations, OSEP established 20 indicators to
guide State Education Agencies (SEAs) in their implementation of the
IDEA and how SEAs report progress and performance.
•The Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) is submitted to OSEP
annually and is required to be posted on the state's Web site.
•This reporting process also allows OSEP to monitor and supervise
state implementation in specific areas as well as report concrete data
back to Congress.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
5
IDEA 2004
• Although the OSEP indicators include both
compliance and results indicators, state
determinations have been based only on the
compliance indicators.
• Thus, the system for general supervision and
accountability under IDEA continued to place a
heavy emphasis on monitoring procedural
compliance with regulations without
consideration of how those requirements impact
student learning outcomes.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
6
Primary Goal of IDEA
and Accountability
• Under the IDEA 2004 requirements, the primary goal for providing
services to individuals with disabilities is to prepare them for further
education, employment, and independent living.
• Thus, improving educational results and functional outcomes for
students and their families should be the main focus of the
accountability system.
• However, the continued over emphasis on regulatory procedural
compliance without consideration of results has created a
bureaucratic process for states to implement.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
7
The National Association of State
Directors of Special Education
• The National Association of State Directors of Special
Education (NASDSE) has consistently urged OSEP
officials to also consider results and outcomes rather
than continuing the heavy emphasis on the compliance
indicators alone.
• Furthermore, the NASDSE Board of Directors has
frequently expressed concerns with OSEP leaders
concerning the stringent emphasis on procedural
compliance requirements established through OSEP
directives and guidance documents, including
Memorandum 09-02.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
8
U.S. Department of
Education
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.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
9
U.S. Department of
Education and OSEP
• In spring of 2011, OSEP began making plans to
include a review of selected results indicators
as part of the Verification Visits to States.
• In fall 2011 our Verification Visit with OSEP
included a day to focus on results with
stakeholders.
• These first attempts to focus on results and
outcomes went through several changes as
OSEP visited a number of states with scheduled
Verification Visits.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
10
Historic Changes
Announced in 2012
On March 2, 2012, U.S. Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan announced historic changes in
Federal policy:
• To help close the achievement gap for students with
disabilities,
• To move away from a one-size-fits-all, compliancefocused approach, and
• To craft a more balanced system that looks at how well
students are being educated in addition to continued
efforts to protect their rights.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
11
U.S. Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan
"For too long we've been a compliance-driven
bureaucracy when it comes to educating
students with disabilities."
"We have to expect the very best from our
students—and tell the truth about student
performance—so that we can give all students
the supports and services they need. The best
way to do that is by focusing on results."
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
12
Other National and State
Initiatives
• The recent OSEP initiative is aligned with other current changes
being implemented at the State and national level, including the
ESEA Flexibility Waivers.
• The academic rigor and expectations for all students has been
increased with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards.
• Currently, our State accountability system is under intensive review
with stakeholders and is being revised to focus on improving results
for all students and implementing accountability measures for states,
local districts, and schools.
• Mississippi is designing a new educator evaluation system that will
include accountability measures for student achievement and growth
for all school instructional personnel and administrative leaders.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
13
Results-Driven
Accountability (RDA)
A New Model to Strengthen Accountability
for Students with Disabilities
• Moving away from a Regulatory Emphasis on
Procedural Compliance to a Results Driven
Accountability (RDA) Model
• Focusing on Improving Educational Results and
Functional Outcomes for Children and Youth with
Disabilities
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
14
A More Balanced Approach
for Results and Compliance
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
15
Redesigning the IDEA
Accountability System
• During the past year, OSEP has been working closely
with stakeholder groups to redesign its accountability
system to shift the balance from a system that has
focused primarily on compliance to one that puts more
emphasis on results and outcomes.
• The new Federal directives from OSEP will guide states
in the direction of focusing their efforts and resources
through a Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) model to
improve educational results and functional outcomes for
students with disabilities and their families.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
16
OSEP’s Vision for RDA
• In order to fulfill the IDEA’s requirements, a
more balanced approach to determining
program effectiveness in special education is
necessary.
• The Office of Special Education Programs’
(OSEP) vision for Results Driven Accountability
(RDA) is that 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.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
17
OSEP’s Rationale for Change
and Background Points
• 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.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
18
Core Principles of RDA
1. A system that is developed in partnership with our
stakeholders
2. A system that is transparent and understandable to
states and the general public, especially individuals
with disabilities and their families
3. A system that drives improved outcomes for all
children and youth with disabilities regardless of their
age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender,
socioeconomic status, or location
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
19
Core Principles of RDA
4. A system that 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
5. A system that provides differentiated incentives,
supports, and interventions based on each state’s
unique strengths, progress, challenges, and needs
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
20
Core Principles of RDA
6. A system that 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
7. A system that 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
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
21
NEW RDA MODEL
A more balanced approach for determining program effectiveness
in special education will be implemented in 2013.
• An annual review of all indicator data for both compliance and
results from the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual
Performance Report (APR) will be required.
• The state as well as local districts will be held accountable jointly
to improve results and demonstrate growth over time.
This new focus on joint responsibility for accountability will require
states and local districts to establish collaborative models that will
address improving educational results and student learning
outcomes.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
22
State Accountability and
Annual Determinations
The designation “Meets Requirements” should acknowledge a state’s
effectiveness in improving outcomes for children and youth with
disabilities relative to other states and to the nation as well as
ensuring that states meet the IDEA program requirements.
• Mississippi is one of the few states that achieved a “Meets
Requirements” determination for four consecutive years based on
the compliance indicators in the SPP/APR.
• OSEP is constructing a new matrix for making annual
determinations that will address student achievement and growth as
well as other student outcome measures such as graduation rates.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
23
Moving Forward in 2013
with RDA
• Our Annual Performance Report was
submitted to OSEP on February 15, 2013, and
State Determinations will be announced in late
June or early July 2013.
• Each local school district will now receive an
annual determination based on the district’s
overall performance results on a set of priority
indicators and other relevant data rather than
only compliance indicators beginning in fall of
2013.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
24
Office of Special Education
Primary Functions
• The Office of Special Education assures
that programs and services for students
with disabilities meet State and Federal
requirements.
• This involves both compliance and
technical assistance functions.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
25
Compliance Functions
Compliance functions include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
continuous monitoring through data reports,
administering the due process system,
providing mediation services,
conducting complaint investigations,
conducting fiscal audits,
approving policies and procedures,
conducting focused and comprehensive reviews, and
approving nonpublic special education programs.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
26
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance functions involve:
• providing information and guidance on regulations and
policies,
• providing information and guidance on promising
practices in educating students with disabilities,
• administering the comprehensive system of personnel
development for special education, including Statewide
and regional trainings, and
• managing multiple grant programs to school districts,
state agencies, and private schools for special education
service delivery.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
27
New Vision for the Office of
Special Education
Improving educational results and functional
outcomes for EVERY child and youth with
disabilities
In the new RDA model, all components of accountability
will be aligned in a manner that best supports the local
education agencies (LEAs) in improving educational
results and functional outcomes for Every student
with a disability.
Bartlett, John C., Attitudes for Excellence, Principal Leadership, Sept. 2012.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
28
New Mission of Service
The primary function of the Office of Special Education (OSE) will be
refocused to provide a more service-oriented organization that
seeks to improve the educational results and functional outcomes
for EVERY child and youth with disabilities.
 We will strive to nurture a dedicated staff through professional
development opportunities, field experience, and individual
accountability.
 We will coordinate services, including training, technical
assistance, and supports to local school districts as well as
parents and families to provide effective educational programs
and services to students with disabilities, ages 3-20, who need
special education and related services.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
29
General Supervision and
IDEA Requirements
The Office of Special Education will continue efforts to
monitor and enforce the IDEA program requirements
and to protect the rights of students with disabilities
and their families.
• The IDEA requires states to monitor LEAs, but it does
not specifically require on-site monitoring of each LEA.
• The Office of Special Education will fulfill its statutory
responsibility to monitor all local educational agencies
(LEAs) through the Annual Performance Reports (APR)
and monitoring of compliance with fiscal requirements.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
30
Monitoring and Compliance
• A differentiated system of monitoring and
technical assistance will be developed and
implemented to support LEAs with the most
significant needs for improvement.
• The Office of Special Education will continue to
investigate Formal State Complaints, as
required by the IDEA regulations, and protect
the rights of students with disabilities and their
families.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
31
Monitoring and Technical
Assistance
• All school districts will be monitored through
ongoing review of the required data reports,
including fiscal data reports.
• Performance data will be used to determine the
appropriate level of monitoring, technical
assistance, and additional support for districts
that do not receive an annual designation of
Meets Requirements.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
32
Monitoring and Technical
Assistance
Using data on priority indicators, districts with
identified needs may receive an on-site visit that
will be designed to provide targeted technical
assistance and supports
– utilizing a collaborative approach to analyze
data, and
– jointly planning strategies for program
improvement.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
33
Next Steps for Mississippi
in 2013
• Engage stakeholders in developing the State’s
RDA model.
• Revise State policies to:
– incorporate the RDA model, and
– establish a differentiated system of monitoring and
technical assistance (TA) based on the performance
indicator data.
• Redesign internal work processes to better
support local districts in improving results.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
34
Next Steps for Mississippi
in 2013
• Develop service models to better support local
school districts in improving results and
outcomes.
• Establish and train service teams to implement
a differentiated system of monitoring, technical
assistance, and support for local school districts.
• Provide targeted technical assistance and
supports to districts and schools with the most
significant needs for improvement.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
35
References
• For more information about the work of the U.S. Department's Office
of Special Education Programs, see
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html
• For more information on the 20 Part B Indicators, see
http://www.nichcy.org
• Bartlett, John C., Attitudes for Excellence, Principal Leadership,
September 2012
• Mark Wolak Ed.D, President, Board of School Superintendents,
History of Change in Special Education
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
36
SPP/APR
• State Performance Plan (SPP)
• Annual Performance Report (APR)
[The State] must annually report to the secretary and the
public on the progress of the State, and of children with
disabilities in the State, toward meeting the goals
established under §300.157(a) for the performance of
children with disabilities in the State, that may include
elements of the reports required under Section 1111(h) of
the ESEA.
[34 CFR 300.157(c)] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(15)(C)]
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
37
State Performance Plan (SPR)
• Updates and revisions are due February
1st of each year
• Spans a six year period
• Covers 20 indicators established in IDEA
2004
• Requires baseline data and goals
(targets) for the state
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
38
February 1, 2011 APR
• Indicator 1 Graduation
– Target – 66%/Actual 20%
• Indicator 2 Drop Out
– Target – 18%/Actual 22%
• Indicator 3 - Assessment
– Target/Actual
• 3A – 50% of districts meet AYP/23% of Districts
• 3B – 95%/97.5%
• 3C – 66.3% Reading 68% Math/20% and 29.1%
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
39
February 1, 2011 APR
• Indicator 4a – Suspensions and Expulsions %
LEAs
– Target – 0 Districts/Actual 28.95%
• Indicator 4b – Significant Discrepancy
– Target – 0%/Actual 0%
• Indicator 5 – Least Restrictive Environment
– Target/Actual
• 5A – 57.97%/66.97%
• 5B – 17.48%/12.89%
• 5C – 2.23%/2.17%
• Indicator 6 – New Indicator. Will report baseline
data in February 2012.
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
40
February 1, 2011 APR
• Indicator 7 – Preschool Assessment
– Target/Actual
• Summary Statement 1
– Outcome A: 49%/47%
– Outcome B: 51%/47%
– Outcome C: 40%/43%
• Summary Statement 2
– Outcome A: 82%/78%
– Outcome B: 70%/61%
– Outcome C: 78%/72%
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
41
February 1, 2011 APR
• Indicator 8 – Parent Survey
– Target – 71.46%/Actual 95.79%
• Indicator 9 – Disproportionate Representation
by Child Count
– Target – 0 Districts/Actual 0
• Indicator 10 – Disproportionate
Representation by Disability
– Target – 0 Districts/Actual 0
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
42
February 1, 2011 APR
• Indicator 11 – Child Find
– Target – 100%/Actual 99.09%
• Indicator 12 – C to B Transition
– Target – 100%/Actual 93.94%
• Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition with
IEP Goals
– Target – 100%/Actual 99.95%
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
43
February 1, 2011 APR
• Indicator 14 – Post-Secondary
– Target/Actual
• 14a – 26%/24%
• 14b – 63%/59%
• 14c – 80%/77%
• Indicator 15 – Monitoring, Complaints,
Hearings
– Target – 100%/Actual 100%
• Indicator 16 – Written Complaints
– Target – 100%/Actual 100%
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
44
February 1, 2011 APR
• Indicator 17 – Due Process Hearings
– Target – 100%/Actual 94.12%
• Indicator 18 – Hearing Requests
– Target – 50%/Actual 100%
• Indicator 19
– Target – 75%/Actual 62.50%
• Indicator 20 – Timelines for State
Submitted Data/Reports
– Target – 100%/Actual 100%
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
45
SPP/APR Web Page
SPP and APRs along with Public
Reporting data for each district have
been published on the State’s website:
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/specialeducation/special-education-spp-apr
RDA and SPP/APR
Indicators
Office of Special Education
46