Skip to Content


Improving Special Education Services (ISES) Stakeholders MeetingWorkgroup Recommendations

June 3, 2008


Workgroup #1

Indicator #9  Disproportionality Overall

Indicator #10  DisproportionalityDisability


  1. Revise Indicators 9 and 10 definition of “disproportionate representation”.  Develop formula and analysis steps accordingly.
  2. Collect and analyze data according to the revised definition and determine what districts have disproportionate over or under representation.
  3. Develop definition of “appropriate” or “inappropriate” disproportionality (or identification).
  4. Determine from the districts identified as having over or under disproportionate representation, which ones are due to inappropriate identification policies, procedures or practices as defined above.
  5. Once determinations of over or under representation are made:
    1. Understand who are the school districts that have problems
    2. Discover what are the contributing problems
    3. Provide improvement strategies TA to resolve the problems
    4. Provide strategies for prevention for compliant districts
    5. Find model sites and/or programs


Workgroup #2

Indicator #3:  Statewide Assessment


  1. Resources leveraged for parent training regarding purpose of statewide assessments (include professionals).  Goal:  increase in participation
  2. List ERIA, RCAT as part of improvement categories. Include CDE Diagnostic Centers work.  Goal: Increase proficiency
  3. Within CDE, communication between branches increased
  4. Use listserv to inform field of improvement activities of CalSTAT leadership sites.


Workgroup # 3

Indicator #5:  Least Restrictive Environment


  1. Identify promising practices for teacher and administration preparation
  2. Professional development, joint training between Special Education and General Education on RtI, 504, accommodations, modifications
  3. IHE: teacher preparation, core competencies, specializations
    1. School level, shared resources, co-teaching, collaboration
  4. Standards teaching profession
    1. Stakeholder Group
      1. Special Education
      2. General Education
      3. Administration
  5. Promising practices research and what is monitored (CASEMIS)

Top 3 Recommendations:

  1. Clarify RtI, 504, SAT, IEP process for all
  2. Create standard for teaching profession
  3. Expand data collection
    1. By age group, district, etc
    2. Accountability versus decision making
    3. Data driven decision making
    4. “Must be aligned”


Workgroup #4

Indicator #16:  Complaints

Indicator #17:  Due Process

Indicator #18: Hearing Requests

Indicator #19: Mediation


Indicator #16:  Obtain customer service feedback from contacts. Move away from strict performance indicators to standards parallel to NCLB and AYP.

Indicator #16 & #17:  Formalize PTI/FEC relationships to assist with due process and complaints filing instructions (including training)

Indicator # 17:  Conduct more joint trainings in Special Education community.  Include NPS to receive training (could be web-based or on CD)

Indicator #18:  Special Education community to ensure and clarify training materials from consumer perspective

All Indicators:  Simplify Special Education website (one stop shopping).  Possibly have a small Special Education community representative group review and design


Workgroup #5

Indicator #8:  Parent Involvement


  1. To respond to OSEP regarding sampling plan
    1. 3-prong approach to gather data on parent involvement
      1. Add #5 as part of CASEMIS
      2. 25 question version should remain as part of monitoring and self review
      3. Post NCSEAM online (Florida model)
  2. Parent Centers and SELPAs are invited to craft alternative questions for survey
  3. Summer meeting to be scheduled to possibly have Batya Elbaum present to discuss which constructs (groupings) to have and flesh out the dissemenination of the survey to include Parent Centers, PTI, FECs, and others


Workgroup # 6

Indicator # 1:  Graduation

Indicator #2:  Dropout

Indicator #13:  Secondary Transition Goals and Services

Indicator #14: Post-school


  1. Redesign Fall TOT for Transition
    1. Possible level 2 training
    2. More hands on
    3. Resources linked
    4. Practical application piece
  2. Benefit planning/student rights and resources for interagency collaboration to support transition
  3. Data collection training for #13 and #14
    1. Combine and present at Fall 2008 TOT and Transitions Conference using similar methodologies so the data informs practice


Workgroup #7

Indicator#6  Preschool Least Restrictive Environment

Indicator #7:  Preschool Assessment

Indicator #12:  Part C to Part B Transition


Indicator #6

  1. SEEDS model sites develop online component
  2. Identify additional inclusive model sites in California
  3. Ensure that families are informed about the availability of family resource centers to help explore options for 3-5 year olds
  4. Identify resources that help further define LRE and do it (SEECAP will focus on LRE)

Indicator #7

  1. Present information regarding linking DRDP and curriculum to field meetings to inform programming
  2. Provide parent training across the state on DRDP

Indictor #12

1. Include information during preschool field meetings about the importance of considering IFSP recommendations for children who may have benefitted from Part C who are at age level and may still benefit from Part B services (to maintain skills)


Workgroup #8

Strategic Leadership Plan and SIG 2


  1. Revisit Strategic Plan to include ISES recommendations 
  2. Crosswalk Strategic Plan to ISES Recommendations, SPP and APR indicators, and Education Specialist Credential Standards
  3. Focus on E-survey next steps: complete pilot, validate, market to prep programs, support providers, and others
  4. Continue leadership team.  Need parent voice, CARS+ voice on the team.
  5. Focus areas: E-survey and Collaboration
    1. Continuous collaboration (GE/SE, agencies/orgs, districts/IHES, SE/BTSA) for professionalization 
    2. Examine and implement structures that promote professional collaboration



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.