Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

Office of Exceptional ChildrenCathy Boshamer, Director

John Payne, Team LeadNovember 7, 2013

Steven Lee Davis – A Child’s Story

Steven Lee Davis (SLD)

is really…

Critical Findings for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)

Students with SLD make up about 50% of the SWD population

Significant risk of not graduating with a regular diploma

Decisions in elementary school can take students off path for a regular diploma

17 states fall below the nationwide rate of 68 percent; SC is one of these states

Findings for SC Students with SLD

Graduation rate with a regular diploma is 48 percent

Graduation gap is 35 percentage points between all students and students with disabilities

Drop-out rate for students with SLD is high Generally, more students with SLD drop-out

than leave with a regular diploma

(National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2013)

Early Interventions About 45% of children

receiving Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) go on to receive special education

Monitoring Observations: Many RtI programs with varied success; some do not follow tiered approach nor are they being implemented with fidelity

Initial Evaluations

FFY 2005

FFY 2006

FFY 2007

FFY 2008

FFY 2009

FFY 2010

FFY 2011

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

83.0%

91.0%99.2% 99.6% Increased compliance to

timely evaluations Some evaluations focus

ONLY on the disability category (e.g., speech eval)

Instances of “re-evals” within a few months following

Some lack of evaluation planning

OVER 18,000 Initial Evaluations in 2012

Individualized Education Programs

Karvonen, et al (2011) found that SC IEPs were often vague; were not linked to standards; did not vary accommodations; and did not link present levels to IEP goals

IEP goals and present levels are the #1 area of noncompliance from onsite monitoring for multiple years

IEP implementation is the #1 finding from formal IDEA dispute resolution complaints

Accommodations Usage – All SWD

SWD Receiving Oral Admin of ELA by Grade

Least Restrictive Environment

Inside Regular Class 80% or more

of the day

Inside Regular Class 79-40% of

the day

Inside Regular Class For Less

Than 40% Of DayAutism 29.77% 17.34% 49.77%Deaf and Hard of Hearing 51.91% 22.47% 12.81%Deaf-blindness 0.00% 0.00% 40.00%Developmental Delay 45.23% 25.60% 28.70%Emotional Disability 32.62% 24.37% 33.57%Intellectual Disability 6.94% 16.48% 71.36%Multiple Disabilities 18.92% 10.96% 56.14%Orthopedic Impairment 36.78% 20.32% 38.00%Other Health Impairment 54.56% 27.72% 15.45%Specific Learning Disability 59.88% 28.85% 10.55%Speech or Language Impairment 96.72% 0.99% 0.56%Traumatic Brain Injury 37.23% 18.62% 37.77%Visual Impairment 54.35% 11.59% 8.45%Grand Total 57.31% 21.80% 18.62%

Least Restrictive Environment

59.88%

28.85%

10.55%

Inside Regular Class 80% or more of the day

Inside Regular Class 79-40% of the day

Inside Regular Class For Less Than 40% Of Day

2012 Specific Learning Disability Ages 6-21

LRE – “Self Contained”

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

Age

2012 Specific Learning Disability Inside Regular Class For Less Than 40% Of Day (6-21)

SLD Exit Reasons (2012)

7.66%

30.46%

2.64%1.21%0.12%

31.31%

26.61%

(A) Transferred to regular education

(B) Graduated with regular high school diploma

(C) Received a certificate

(D) Reached maximum age

(E) Died

(F) Moved, known to be continuing

(G) Dropped out

2011 Specific Learning Disability Exit DataAges 6-21

SLD Exit Reasons by Age (2012)

Age 14 Age 15 Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 Age 19 Age 20 Age 210%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(G) Dropped out

(F) Moved, known to be con-tinuing

(E) Died

(D) Reached maximum age

(C) Received a certificate

(B) Graduated with regular high school diploma

(A) Transferred to regular ed-ucation

SLD Age and Exit Reason

Post-secondary Transition – ALL SWD

For 2011 – 2012, 90% compliance for post-secondary transition IEPs and services

A leading issue of noncompliance from onsite monitoring

26%

36%2%

9%

27%

Engagement by Category After Leaving School

Competitive employmentHigher educa-tionOther educa-tionOther employ-mentUnengaged

Now Back to Steven Lee Davis (SLD)

What should we ask ourselves?

Are our Response-to-Intervention programs being implemented with fidelity? Did he get specific interventions early on to

help him with his academic struggles?

Are we using evidence-based practices? Did he get interventions long enough? Did

they work? Did we have a tiered approach?

What should we ask ourselves? Are we completing

comprehensive evaluations of EACH child that identifies ALL their special education and related service needs (whether or not commonly linked to the child’s category of disability)?

How might a different IEP and services affect his current/future performance?

What should we ask ourselves? Are we making

individualized determinations about LRE placements; IEP goals; related services; and supplementary aids and supports?

Did we think about looking at math? Behavior? BIPs? FBAs? Did we attempt supplemental aids?

What should we ask ourselves? Are we making individualized

decisions, based on information and data, about specific accommodations that will enable the child to access and progress in the general education curriculum?

If he had problems with sounds/stories being read aloud (aka as SLD with listening comprehension), how appropriate was oral administration? What else could we have tried?

What should we ask ourselves?

Are we, through innovative approaches, preparing children for life after they leave school?

How could we have better prepared S.L.D. for high school? For NOT dropping out? For adult ed? For college? For life?

The OEC is here to help!! Training on Common Core for SWD Training on UDL with State Personnel Development Grant Free week-long Research to Practice Institute Manuals and Other Supporting Documentation Monitoring Schools/Districts for Compliance Providing ongoing technical assistance Reviewing eligibility guidelines and processes Data mining to understand how improvements can be

made Developing a 6-year State Systemic Plan to improve

outcomes for children with disabilities Collaborating, collaborating, collaborating

THANK YOU!

For more information about initiatives; to obtain technical assistance or professional

development; or for questions, please contact:

THE OFFICE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN1429 SENATE STREET, STE 808

COLUMBIA, SC 29201803-734-8224

HTTP://ED.SC.GOV/AGENCY/AC/EXCEPTIONAL-CHILDREN/