Upload
aron-rodgers
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
One School System’s Journey (so far)
Leadership for Equity and Excellence Forum Equity Alliance at ASUFebruary 28, 2011
Objectives • Describe the history and framework of AACPS’
approach to the issue of Disproportionality
• Provide an effective protocol and systematic problem solving process that can be applied systemically or in individual schools to remediate Disproportionality
• Share results and discuss factors that have been found to contribute to Disproportionality in our district
• Share resources and effective strategies for addressing Disproportionality in schools
The AACPS Approach History & Framework
Anne Arundel County Public SchoolsAnnapolis, MD
History• Recognized as Disproportionate by
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)– Areas of Concern
Identification – in categories of Specific Learning Disability (SLD), Emotional Disturbance (ED), and Mental Retardation/Intellectually Disabled (MR/ID)
Placement Discipline
– 15% EIS budget allocation requirement
• Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Agreement– Establishment of Goals for the Improvement of Education and
Academic Attainment among African American Students• Issue of Parity
AACPS Disproportionality Workgroup
• Established Spring of 2007
• Multidisciplinary Team to Collaboratively Address Disproportionality Vertically and Horizontally
• Partner with the State (MSDE) for Discretionary Grant Funding and Re-examine Definition of Disproportionality
• Develop, Implement, and Monitor District Level Action Plan
District Level Action Plan Critical Components
• Incorporation of a Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) process – RtI framework for prevention and early intervention
• Review and enhanced utilization of system/school-based accountability tools: Audits/Internal Monitoring Screening Tools Special Ed Process and Forms Transfer activities
• Cultural Proficiency/Stakeholder Communication
• Data Analysis & Exploration of Evidence-Based Practices for Assessment and Intervention
• Provision of Equity in Resource Allocation for Intervention
• Outreach to Parents & Community
• System-wide implementation of a TEAM Teaching model
• Value of Professional Development
• Expansion of Alternative Education Options
• Identification of and Outreach to Targeted Schools
District Level Action Plan Critical Components
MSDE Disproportionality Grant• Hiring of a Disproportionality Project Facilitator
• Targeted outreach to schools using the risk ratio (>2.0)– 2007-08: 13 Target Schools – 2008-09: 15 Target Schools (7 new & 8 returning) – 2009-10: 15 Target Schools (6 new & 9 returning) – 2010-11: 17 Target Schools (3 new & 14 returning/ recognizing 4 schools are between 2.00-2.04)
• Provision of Materials of Instruction (MOI) & Stipend mini-grants to address inequity of resource allocation and support plan implementation
• Annual Disproportionality Conference with national speakers
• School Specific Training focus on Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) & Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (PBIS)
Targeted School Outreach
Remediating Disproportionality one school … one student at a time
The Protocol
• Initial meeting with school teams – introduce the required self-assessment tool
• Follow-up meeting with school teams to review the self-assessment results & begin action planning through the CDM process
• Finalize and review the school-based action plan
• Implement the action plan with technical assistance and on-going progress monitoring by the Facilitator/CDM Consultant
Self-Assessment• Focuses school attention on current policies/procedures
and instructional practices
• Encourages raising teacher awareness of cultural issues, at the school level and within the community, as a means of addressing disproportionate numbers
• Incorporates:– School Data– An Intervention Summary– Program Effectiveness Analysis– Program Summary
• What’s Working?• What Requires ACTION?
Problem Identification & Analysis
SUCCESSIntervention EvaluationLimitedSuccess
Intervention Design & Implementation
Intervention Evaluation
Intervention Design & Implementation
Problem Identification& Analysis
• Problem Areas Documented• Baseline Data is Recorded• Short- and Long-term Goals are Set• Strengths and Resources
are Highlighted• Obstacles are Prioritized & Targeted• Evidence-based Intervention
Strategies are Identified
Intervention Evaluation
Intervention Design & Implementation
Problem Identification& Analysis
• Specific plan of action is developed
• Accountability measures are incorporated to ensure fidelity
• Progress monitoring
Intervention Evaluation
Intervention Design & Implementation
Problem Identification& Analysis
• Data is utilized to assess progress• Next steps are determined
Why use CDM to address System Level Change?
• Assists teams in determining the “Root Cause” of a concern while providing a framework for problem solving
• Involves multiple disciplines & resources in a Professional Learning Community (PLC) to address district, cluster, and school goals
• Uses data and progress monitoring to guide instructional practices
• Demonstrates alignment with School Improvement Plan efforts
• Provides accountability
The Results Finding the Big Ideas and their Impact
4 Original “Big Ideas” in AACPS Disproportionality
IdentificationIdentificationResources/ Resources/
InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Big Idea #1: Identification• Need for uniformity & accuracy
• Compassionate coding – Attitude that “more is better” when helping kids
• Need for auditing/ accountability in initial identifications (self-audits with checklist or external audits)
• What is normal? Disability defined as relative to population in school – Implementation of the WIN Project – spring 2010
• Enhanced focus on target schools making initial determination
• Guidelines for re-evaluation determination process
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Big Idea #2: Resources/Intervention
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Equity of resource allocation
Title I vs. AAA vs. Nothing
Need for expansion of CDM & PBIS
Need for approved interventions for Math & Written Language
Need for support with red zone behaviors
Exploration of cluster-based licensure and targeting for interventions
Culturally proficient mental health services
Big Idea #3: Professional Development
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Cultural Proficiency & Truth in Labeling
CDM & PBIS
Culturally Responsive Assessments
Differentiated Instruction
Interventions
Cultural Differences in Language and Behavior Management (Is the behavior disturbed or disturbing?)
Big Idea #4: Community Partnerships
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Mentoring opportunities
Business sponsorships
Outreach programs to specific communities
Involvement of faith-based groups
Parent education/PR on alternatives to special education
IdentificationIdentification Resources/ Resources/ InterventionsInterventions
Professional Professional DevelopmentDevelopment
Community Community PartnershipsPartnerships
Big Idea #5: Disproportionality Awareness(recognized in Spring 2009)
Disproportionality Disproportionality
AwarenessAwareness
Ongoing Progress Monitoring
Continued Self-Exploration through School Improvement process
Non-linear, multi-layered problem solving
Courageous Conversations – “Putting the ugly on the table”
Keeping the issue current & relevant
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ES 1 ES 2 ES 3 ES 4 ES 5 ES 6 ES 7 ES 8 ES 9 MS 10 MS 11 HS 12 HS 13
2006
2007
Disproportionality Weighted Risk Ratios for Target Schools in 2007-08
*Average change in target schools from 2006 to 2007was -0.88
Disproportionality Weighted Risk Ratios in New Target Schools for 2008-09
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
ES 14 ES 15 ES 16 MS 17 MS 18 MS 19 HS 20
2007
2008
*Average change in new target schools from 2007 to 2008 was -0.47
Disproportionality Weighted Risk Ratios in Returning Target Schools for 2008-09
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ES 1 ES 3 ES 5 ES 6 MS 10 MS 11 HS 12 HS 13
2006
2007
2008
*Average change in returning target schools from 2006 to 2008 was -1.24
In the Spring of 2009, AACPS was recognized as no longer Significantly Disproportionate for Special Education Identification by MSDE . The journey continues!
The Journey MUST Continue!
*Average 1-Year change for all schools is -20% from baseline
2-Year change is -24% from baseline3-Year change is -10% (impacted by decreasing Special Ed enrollment
numbers)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2007-08 New Schools 2008-09 New Schools 2009-10 New Schools
Baseline
After 1 Year
After 2 Years
After 3 Years
Identified Resources Recognized on the JourneySharing Strategies and Research
Resource Guide
• Summarizes key components of AACPS process
• Includes effective strategies identified in action plans
• Incorporates a Companion CD with links to important documents, research, and websites
• Online version available at http://www.aacps.org/ocr/cdrom.pdf
Questions?
Mary Tillar – [email protected] Levine – [email protected] Kristen Mayle – [email protected]