Skip to Content

 

Improving Special Education Services (ISES) June 9, 2011

Work Group Descriptions

Purpose of Work Group Discussions:

  1. Disproportionate Representation (Indicators # 4, 9, & 10)
    Patricia Skelton, Ralph Scott, Doug McDougall and George Triest
    • Indicator #4a Suspension and Expulsion (Overall)
      Rates of suspension and expulsion: Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year.
    • Indicator #4b Suspension and Expulsion (Race & Ethnicity)
      Percents are not calculated for districts of residence reporting fewer than 20 students receiving special education services. Districts large enough to be calculated were considered to have met the target if fewer than two students were suspended or expelled for more than ten days.

      The percent of districts that have an overall suspension or expulsion rate greater than one percent are expected to decrease over the years. The measure is not reported this year as per instructions for the FFY 2007 SPP/APR Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with disabilities by race and ethnicity.
    • Indicator #9 Disproportionality (Overall)
      Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
    • Indicator #10 Disproportionality (Disability)
      Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

 

  1. Transition Language and Post-Secondary Outcomes (Indicators #12, 13, 14)
    Meredith Cathcart, Jill Larson and Dan Boomer
    • Indicator #12 Part C to Part B Transition
      Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed and implemented by their third birthdays
    • Indicator #13 Transition Language
      Percent of youth aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet the post-secondary goals
    • Indicator 14:  Post-Secondary Outcomes
      Percent of youth, who had Individualized Education Programs (IEP), are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)).
  2. State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) Awarded 2008
    Janet Digmon

Five-Year Award http://www.calstat.org/sig.html


The SPDG continues to reform and improve California’s system of professional development and personnel preparation to increase student achievement and improve outcomes for students with disabilities birth through 21. Activities provide scale up of high quality professional development, training, and technical assistance in the use of literacy strategies and positive behavioral supports that are scientific or evidence-based and more. This discussion will include the following:

  • How the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the State Performance Plan (SPP) govern how States must use SPDG dollars when applying for the grant.
  • The 2008 SPDG Award funded activities.
  • Discussion related to three current SPDG activities: Effective Reading Intervention Academy, Family Participation Fund, and the School Climate Survey reporting.
  • Looking forward to 2012 and California’s application for its next SPDG.

 

 


IDEAS that Work!

Project READ is a California Department of Education, Special Education Division project funded through a federal competitively-awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A120019) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.