Focus

Exceptional Student Education

Where’s the Money?

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(ARRA)

• IDEA Recovery Funds for Services to Children and Youths with Disabilities

FEFP Funding History

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

$5,217.91 $5,488.73 $5,758.58 $6,154.67 $6,818.35 $7,126.33 $6,845.17 $6,873.07Total Funds per UFTE

Authority:s.1011.62(1)(b),

F.S.

BaseStudent

Allocation(BSA)

The Base Student Allocation (BSA) is determined annually by the Legislature in the General Appropriations Act

The BSA for 2009-10 is $3,630.62

.

X

Base Student Allocation

• 2006-07 $ 3,981.61

• 2007-08 4,079.74

• 2008-09 3,886.14

• 2009-10 3,630.62

Appropriations Act

ProgramWeights

Program weights are used to recognize varying educational program costs

Group 1 Includes Three Programs • Basic Grades K-3 (1.074) • Basic Grades 4-8 (1.000)• Basic Grades 9-12 (1.033)

Group 2 Includes Four Programs• Exceptional Student Education

Level IV (3.520)Level V (4.854)

• English for Speakers of Other Languages(1.124)

• Career Education, Grades 9-12 (1.050)

X

IDEA Funds

Gilchrist’s Award

IDEA State Award (Two Years)

Part B Part B Preschool

ARRA $622,651 $19,605

Entitlement $720,425 $35,108

Total $1,343,076 $54,713

LEA Determinations

based on

State Performance Plan

Indicators

LEA ProfileLEA Profile

2009 LEA Determinations

• One point is generated for meeting each of the criteria with determination categories defined as follows:

– Meets requirements: 7-9 points– Needs assistance: 4-6 points– Needs intervention: 1-3 points– Needs substantial intervention: 0 points

LEA Determinations – Status for 2009

• Districts would have to have substantial compliance on at least 7 of the 9 factors in order to receive a determination of “meets requirements”

# of districts meeting requirements 51

# of districts needing assistance 16

# of districts in needs assistance for 2 consecutive or more years

11

Florida’s SEA Determination

• “Needs Assistance”– third year

• Factor that affected OSEP’s determination– 24% for compliance of Indicator 13– 92 of the 389 records that were reviewed

were found compliant (i.e., IEPs that included coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services)

2009

John M McKay Scholarship

(District)

2009Changes

SB 1540 – Zero Tolerance• Requires that a district school board having a policy

authorizing corporal punishment as a form of discipline review its policy on corporal punishment at specified intervals

• Revises the requirements for zero-tolerance policies by requiring definitions for criteria for reporting acts posing a serious threat to school safety, and petty acts of misconduct

• Requires school districts to adopt a cooperative agreement with DJJ establishing guidelines for ensuring that any no contact order is reported and enforced

• Encourages school districts to use alternatives to expulsion or referral to law enforcement agencies unless using such alternatives will pose a threat to school safety

• Legislature recently approved HB 991 and SB 1682. DA will now be the State’s Official Accountability System.

• Non-Title I A, B, and C schools not making AYP will be included in DA.

• SINI status will not be used to determine placement of schools in the DA matrix.

• Coaches only required for Intervene and Correct II D and F schools.

• Performance and Differentiated Pay only required for Intervene and Correct II D and F schools.

• Eliminated requirement for “outside expert” and extended learning day.

• Community Assistance Team (CAT) is required for F and Intervene schools—only one team is required per district, not per school.

• FAIR required for Correct II and Intervene schools and State’s SIP template required of all DA schools.

Differentiated Accountability: What’s New

Rule 6A-1.09981Implementation of Florida's System

of School Improvement and Accountability

• Cell-size criteria for science and writing in School Grades

• Updated procedure for determining percentage of students proficient in writing (School Grades)

• Inclusion of Florida Alternate Assessment results for students with disabilities in calculating learning gains for reading and math

• Revising high school grading requirements

Revising High School Grading Requirements

Calculation Guide

SB 1908

• Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, 50% of the school’s grade will be based on the existing FCAT-related factors and the remaining 50% will be based on factors that include:– A school’s graduation rate;– As valid data become available, the performance and

participation of students in AP, IB, Dual Enrollment, AICE, and industry certification;

– The postsecondary readiness of the students as measured by the SAT, ACT, or CPT;

– The high school graduation rate of at-risk students;– The performance of a school’s students on statewide

standardized end-of-course assessments, when available; and– Growth or decline in the data components from year to year.

Additional Requirement

• Law stipulates that in order for a high school to be designated as having a grade of “A”, the school must demonstrate that at-risk students are making adequate progress.

• In order for a school that earns enough points for an “A” to be awarded an “A”, the school’s at-risk graduation rate must meet a certain threshold to ensure “adequate progress.”

• This requirement is akin to the current learning gains requirement for the Low 25%.

Inclusion of Florida Alternate Assessment Results in Calculating

Learning Gains

• Section 1008.34(3)(b)(1)b, Florida Statutes, requires that learning gains for students seeking a special diploma, as measured by an alternate assessment tool, shall be included in School Grades no later than the 2009-10 school year.

• The Florida Alternate Assessment has nine separate performance levels, ranging from 1 to 9, with 4 or higher equaling proficient.

• Propose defining a learning gain as an improvement in performance levels or the maintenance of a proficient level.

Graduation Rate

– Calculation changing to ESEA (NCLB) four-year cohort model

– Data will lag one year– New baseline and targets to be established

Program Changes

Rule 6A-6.03011 – ESE Rule 6A-6.03011 – ESE Eligibility for Students with Eligibility for Students with

Intellectual DisabilitiesIntellectual Disabilities

InD

Secondary TransitionSecondary Transition

New Hot Area of Litigation

joins

Autism

Reconvene

• If a participating agency responsible for transition services, other than the school district, fails to provide the transition services described in the IEP, the school district shall reconvene the IEP Team to identify alternative strategies to meet the transition objectives for the student set out in the IEP.

(Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(h)9.a.b.c.)

Alternate Assessment

1% Rule

Rule 6A-6.03018 –Rule 6A-6.03018 –ESE Eligibility for Students with ESE Eligibility for Students with

Specific Learning DisabilitiesSpecific Learning DisabilitiesEffective July 1, 2009Effective July 1, 2009

SLD

• Since December 2008, Florida’s general education intervention requirements in accordance with Rule 6A-6.0331, F.A.C., make a problem-solving/RtI process mandatory prior to considering ESE eligibility.

• TAP 2009 SLD

Parent Involvement in General Education Intervention Procedures

The school district provides opportunities for parents to be involved in the process to address the student’s academic or behavioral areas of concern. Discussions are held with the parent regarding the student’s responses to interventions, supporting data and potential adjustments to the interventions, and anticipated future action to address the student’s learning and/or behavioral area of concern. Maintain documentation of parental involvement and communication.

Whether the student has a specific learning disability as evidence by response to intervention data confirming each of the following:

• Performance discrepancyThe student’s academic performance is significantly discrepant for the

chronological age or grade level in which the student is enrolled, based on multiple sources of data when compared to multiple groups, which include the peer subgroup, classroom, school, district, and state level comparison groups

• Rate of ProgressWhen provided with well-delivered scientific, research-based general education instruction and interventions of reasonable intensity and duration with evidence of implementation fidelity, the student’s rate of progress is insufficient or requires sustained and substantial effort to close the achievement gap with typical peers or academic expectations for the chronological age or grade level in which the student is currently enrolled;and

• Educational needThe student continues to need interventions that significantly differ in intensity

and duration from what can be provided solely through general education resources to make or maintain sufficient progress

Did Someone Say..

• “We can evaluate your child for ESE because we haven’t done RtI.”

2010 2010 Proposed RulesProposed Rules

• HB 0081 Seclusion and Restraint on SWD

• SB 2616 (Compare)

• SB 2118 (Similar)

Compliance

How to stay out of the spotlight.

You Might Need PD if…

• “It’s not fair to my other students.”• “I don’t have time.”• “He doesn’t want my help anyway.”• “I didn’t sign on for this!”• “The parents are the REAL problem.”• “He’s just lazy.”• “No one told me I was supposed to do anything.”• “I’m ready to retire anyway.”• “I think this law is STUPID!”

Common IEP Errors

• “Drive-by” IEPs.• Forgetting to bring needed records to the IEP meeting.• Individuals vs. the IEP Team (not getting your story straight).• Discouraging the parent from being an active participant.• Side-bar conversations.• Selective amnesia in the IEP meeting (to get your desired result).• Losing your cool in the IEP meeting.• Failing to have current data on student progress.• Decisions based on teacher/admin. frustration

Avoiding Legal Disputes In Special Education:

21 Training Points for Administrators

Lucky 21

Role of LEA in IEP Meetings

Commit Resources

Procedural Safeguards

Change Happens!

How will you deal with it?