1 / 34

Accountability Connections:

Accountability Connections:. National Perspectives on The Big 8 Puzzle for State & Local Educators. National Data Accountability Center, LSU Health Sciences Center. W. Alan Coulter, Ph.D. www.accountabilitydata.org acoulter@lsuhsc.edu. 60’. Working Premises. 6.

tamera
Download Presentation

Accountability Connections:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accountability Connections: National Perspectiveson The Big 8 Puzzle for State & Local Educators National Data Accountability Center, LSU Health Sciences Center W. Alan Coulter, Ph.D. www.accountabilitydata.orgacoulter@lsuhsc.edu 60’

  2. Working Premises 6 • What Gets Counted Gets Done. • Attention Paid Indicates Relative Importance. • We know More than We Know. • A Goal that Can’t be Measured is Just a Slogan. 10/21/2014 2

  3. 9 Diploma Rate Class of 2005All Students(Top and Bottom 10 ranked States) (National Average = 70.6% ) 80.2% (5) 68.8% 79.2% (7) 52/57 78.1% (9) 80.5% (3) 78.1% (9) 80.4% (4) 82.8% (2) 83.3% (1) 79.6% (6) 45.4% (51) 60.1% (45) 78.6% (8) 57.6% (47) 54.1% (50) 55.6% (48) 61.3% (43) 58.1% (46) 61.8% (42) 54.7% (49) 60.8% (44) Largest % of students exiting with a diploma Smallest % of students exiting with a diploma Diplomas Count 2008: School to College: Can State P-16 Councils Ease the Transition? http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2008/06/05/index.html

  4. DIPLOMA COUNTS, 2006 (National Average = 69.2%) 77.0% (10) 78.7% 62.4% (7) 79.0% (43) 46/49 79.2% (5) (4) 77.1% 81.7% 76.8% 78.9% (9) (2) (11) 77.6% (6) 80.7% (8) 82.1% 78.7% (3) (1) 47.3% (7) D.C. (51) Palau 63.3% (42) 48.8% Guam (50) 56.0% 61.4% 55.9% (48) 60.5% V.I. (45) (49) (46) 63.9% 61.9% 57.5% (41) (47) (44) Marshall Is BIE Micronesia Top 11 N. Marianas Source: Edweek.org, Graduation Rates 2006 Bottom 11

  5. 10 5 5

  6. Diplomas for Disabilities FFY 2004-07 Cohort Extended Rate Target = 68% Performance = 69.1%

  7. DropOuts for Disabilities, FFY 2004-07 Target = 6.0 % Performance = 6.8 % How Can We Use These Data to Improve Results ?

  8. What’s the Landscape of Accountability ? And How Can You View It ?

  9. What Congress Intended – IDEA’04 (Parts B & C) • Better Results • Proper Administration (‘General Supervision’) as the ‘Method’ • Unified System of Accountability as the ‘Measures’ It’s all about Methods, Measures, & Results.

  10. Emphasis on Balance in IDEA’04 • “The primary focus of Federal and State monitoring activities described in paragraph (1) shall be on— • ‘‘(A) improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and • ‘‘(B) ensuring that States meet the program requirements under this part, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.”

  11. What Congress Intended – IDEA ‘04 Unified System of Accountability - • Measurable (Indicators) • Rigorous (targets & progress) • Transparent (understood) • Publicly Reported (posted) • Connected (national-state-local) • Consequences (determinations, etc.)

  12. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, ‘04 The Balance between Process and Results

  13. (New) SpEd Compliance Compliance = (FAPE) Educational Processes& Results(Educational Benefit) (OSEP’s Related Requirements document) Culture of Procedural Culture of Results Compliance Compliance (Results = Compliance)

  14. Specifically, What Does I.D.E.A. ‘B’ Require? “There are 755 specifically required compliance items” Chris Drouin, CDE, count of items on the ‘OSEP Checklist. Ex: 755+ items x 6,750,000+ students with disabilities x 180+ days = compliance with federal law. This has NOT Changed !(No One has ever counted all the Part C Requirements)

  15. Here’s the Rub … What do we have show for all our advocacy and best intentions ? You can be in compliance with all 755 required items and not be achieving results for students with disabilities. Too many requirements Trivialize Special Education by making compliance Impossible.

  16. How Does IDEA ’04 Balance Process & Results and Unify Accountability? • State Performance Plans& Annual Performance Reports • 20 Indicators & Rigorous Targets • Public Reporting & Status Determinations • Focused Monitoring • Continuous Progress v. Consequences It’s all about Methods, Measures, & Results.

  17. Accountability within IDEA-B • 3 Priorities in Part B • FAPE in the LRE • General Supervision • Disproportionality • 20 Indicators (the ‘measurables’) • 14 applicable to LEAs • 20 applicable to each state It’s all about Methods, Measures, & Results.

  18. Timely Evaluations • Part C to B • Transition Prep • Post School Outcomes • Corrected Noncompliance • Resolved Complaints • Due Process • Resolutions • Mediations • Timely Data 20 Fed Indicators • Diploma • Drop-out • Participation/ Performance + • Suspension (4A) (4B) • LRE • LRE preschool • Preschool Outcomes* • Parent Involvement • Disproportionality • Big 6 of Disproportionality+ Lilac = Maybe 2010 Rigorous Targets

  19. Status Determination (OSEP for States; States for Locals) • Meets Requirements (?) • Needs Assistance (?) • Needs Intervention (?) • Needs Substantial Intervention (?)

  20. 2007Part B OSEP DeterminationsState Implementation of IDEA American Samoa Guam Northern Marianas D.C. Palau Puerto Rico Marshall Islands B.I.A. V.I. Micronesia Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Source: www.ed.gov

  21. 2008 Determinations – Part B American Samoa Guam Northern Marianas D.C. Palau Puerto Rico Marshall Islands B.I.E. V.I. Micronesia Meets Requirements Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Source: www.ed.gov

  22. 2009 Determinations – Part B American Samoa Guam Northern Marianas D.C. Palau Puerto Rico Marshall Islands B.I.E. Meets Requirements V.I. Micronesia Needs Assistance Needs Intervention Needs Assistance- 2 consecutive years Source: www.ed.gov Needs Assistance- 3 consecutive years Needs Intervention- 3 consecutive years

  23. National to State to Local General Supervision • The ‘National’ Does Not Control Improvement of Results – Dependent on States(What can the ‘National’ Do?) • The ‘State’ Does Not Control Improvement of Results – Dependent on Locals(What can the ‘State’ Do?) • Improvement of Results Must Occur at Local Levels It’s all about Methods, Measures, & Results.

  24. National to State to Local General Supervision • Locals Share the job of General Supervision • General Supervision is the Management & Leadership Structure for Improving Results It’s all about Methods, Measures, & Results.

  25. The BIG 8 of General Supervision (and Continuous Improvement) • What are the minimum Components for General Supervision ? • How do the Components form a state System ? • What are the annual Processes operating within the system ? It’s all about Methods, Measures, & Results.

  26. Difference between Concepts & a Model Each state develops Its Own Model of General Supervision based on what’s required and desired WA SEAC & Task Forces

  27. Components of General Supervision Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation State Performance Plan Ask Yourself How Each Piece Operates and Fits Into the Whole Integrated Monitoring Activities Data on Processes and Results Fiscal Management Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development Effective Dispute Resolution

  28. Accountability’s Big View Pt. B State Performance Plan Policies, Procedures & Effective Implementation State Plan for NCLB Data on NCLB Student Performance & AYP Data on Processes and Results How Does the Big 8 Fit Into a State System? Fiscal Management Integrated Monitoring Activities Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development Reading First Technical Assistance & Professional Development Effective Dispute Resolution Improvement, Correction for NCLB What accountability requirements for other programs have?

  29. Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation State Performance Plan What is a ‘System ?’ Data on Processes and Results Integrated Monitoring Activities Fiscal Manage-ment Targeted T/A & Professional Development Effective Dispute Resolution Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions

  30. General Supervision Policies, Procedures, and Effective Implementation State Performance Plan Integrated Monitoring Activities Data on Processes and Results Fiscal Management Improvement, Correction, Incentives & Sanctions Targeted Technical Assistance & Professional Development Effective Dispute Resolution Big 8

  31. Difference between Concepts & Your Model Each Local Program develops Their Own Model of General Supervision based on what’s required and desired

  32. Expected Outcomes for BreakOut Session - Coming Next Participants will: • Understand the purpose of Washington state’s systems of General Supervision • Identify the minimum components of a local system of general supervision • Determine the appropriate steps necessary to assess and refine a local system of general supervision It’s all about Methods, Measures, & Results.

  33. It’s always about Better Results

  34. We’re Done for this Session! acoulter@lsuhsc.eduwww.accountabilitydata.org

More Related