South Dakota Department of Educationspecial Education Advisory Panel


South Dakota Department of Educationspecial Education Advisory Panel

South Dakota Department of Education
Special Education Advisory Panel
January 22th, 2016
AmericInn, 1981 East King Avenue, Chamberlain, SD
Chairperson: Marie Ivers Vice Chairperson: Penny McCormick-Gilles
Panel Functions
Advise the SEA of unmet needs within the State in the education of children with disabilities
Comment publicly on any rules or regulations proposed by the state regarding the education of children with disabilities
Advise the SEA in developing evaluations and reporting on data to the Secretary under section 618 of the Act
Advise the SEA in developing corrective action plans to address findings identified in Federal monitoring reports under Part B of the Act
Advise the SEA in developing and implementing policies relating to the coordination of services for children with disabilities
Review and comment on final due process hearing findings and decisions
Advise on eligible students with disabilities in adult prisons- The advisory panel also shall advise on the education of eligible students with disabilities who have been convicted as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons
Panel Priorities
Alternate Assessment

Time: Monday, January 9: 9:00 AM

Location: AmericInn, Chamberlain, SD (1981 East King Ave)

I. Welcome:

Approval of the September/October minutes

– made a motion to approve: Stacy Haber

– 2nd motion: Donna Johnson

Minutes approved

Approval of the Agenda

– made a motion to approve: Stacy Haber

– 2nd motion: Penny McCormick-Gilles

Agenda approved

II. Agenda Topics

1. Comment publicly on any rules or regulations proposed by the state regarding the education of children with disabilities

  • Certification rules, Linda Turner
  • An overview was given on how the rule has been changed to obtain an in endorsement in early childhood special education to a K-12 special education endorsement and how to add a K-12 endorsement to an early childhood special education endorsement
  • Special education alternative certification was also explained to the panel, along with employer requirements and reciprocity requirements.

2. Advise the SEA in developing evaluations and reporting on data to the Secretary under section 618 of the Act

  • State Performance Plan Updates, Linda Turner, Jamie Morris, Ambrea Sikes, Ben Morrison
  • Annual Progress Report FFY 2015
  • 17 Indicators, report due Feb 1st
  • Indicator 6: 3-5 Least Restrictive Environment
  • A – Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and
  • B – Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility
  • Both targets met – 6A increased by 2.19% and 6B decreased by 1.85%
  • Indicator 7: Preschool Outcome A
  • Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships
  • Targets for A1 and A2 will remain the same until FY 16
  • A1:Decreased by . 36% (did not meet target
  • A2: Decreased by 1.31% (Target Met)
  • Indicator 7: Preschool Outcome B
  • Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication)
  • Targets for B1 increase by 1% and B2 remains the same until FY2016
  • B1: Increase by .12% - met target
  • B2: Decreased by 5.89% - met target
  • Indicator 7: Preschool Outcome C
  • Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs
  • C1 increase by 1% until 2017 then increase by . 5% and C2 remains same until FY2016 then will increase.%% in 2017 and 1% in 2018
  • C1: Decreased by 1.44% - met target
  • C2: Decreased by 3.49% - met target
  • Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition
  • Data collected via electronic submission
  • There were 2 distrcits with one student who did not meet having an IEP in place by the students 3rd birthday due to procedural error
  • Decreased by .22% from FY14 – did not meet target
  • Indicator 3 A – With the new ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act), we are no longer required to federally report districts AMO’s
  • Indicator 3B – Participation on Statewide Assessment
  • Data has not yet been uploaded into the system
  • Data pulled from state report card
  • Reading participation 99.23% up from 99.19%
  • Math participation 99.11% down from 99.21%
  • Targets for this year
  • Reading and Math - 99.40%
  • Did not meet the targets
  • Indicator 3C – Proficiency
  • New targets set from new state assessments
  • Using spring of 2015 (FFY2014) assessment data as baseline data
  • Using the AMO targets from the report card for Students with Disabilities
  • Found at
  • Suspension/Expulsion
  • Target met
  • Indicator 5: 6-21 Least Restrictive Environment
  • 5a: Increase of .77% - met target
  • 5b: Increase of .10% -met target
  • 5c: Decrease of .09% - met target
  • Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Survey
  • Increase of .86% - met target
  • Indicator 10 – Disproportionality
  • Disproportionate Representation by race/ethnicity for specific disability categories (SLD, SD, ED, Speech, OHI, and AU).
  • Must meet numerical (min N of 20 and 3.o weighted risk ration) and policy and procedures out of compliance
  • South Dakota had 0 district
  • Meet 0% target
  • Indicator 11: Initial Evaluation Timeline
  • South Dakota has a 25 school day evalution timeline
  • Data collected via electronic submission
  • 6 districts out of compliance. One district was found out of compliance for a second year
  • Increased by .01% - did not meet target
  • Indicator 1 – Graduation Rate
  • Target is set at an 85% grad rate
  • South Dakota’s grad rate was 59.92%
  • South Dakota did not met the target
  • Indicator is a 1 year lag (2014-15 graduates)
  • Based off of a 4-year co-hort
  • Indicator 2: Dropout Rate
  • Number of youth dropout divide by number of youth age 14-21
  • One year lag behind (2013-2014 data)
  • Target 2.9% - Data 2.76% - SD did not meet target
  • Indicator 13 – Secondary Transition
  • Data collected through monitoring visits
  • Each individual file reviews is either compliant or non-compliant
  • Target = 100%, SD = 82.02% - SD did not meet target
  • Indicator 14: Post – School Outcomes
  • Post School Outcomes – survey completed one year after graduation
  • A – enrolled in higher education
  • B – enrolled in higher education or competitively employed with one year of leaving high school
  • C - Enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment.
  • SD met the targets for A, B, and C
  • Every Student Succeeds Act presentation, Laura Scheibe
  • What is ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act)
  • New federal law (Dec 2015)
  • Purpose: to provide significant opportunity for all students to receive fair, equitable, and high quality education
  • Replaces NCLB and Flexibility waiver
  • Rolling implementation
  • Requires states to submit a plan
  • States must have challenging academic standards, remain committed to high academic outcomes
  • Assessments are still required in 3-8 and once in high school in the areas of ELA and Math
  • Still required to assess state science standards
  • Accountability System
  • Elementary and middle school
  • Three academic indicators
  • Student achievement
  • Academic growth
  • English Language Proficiency
  • Additional Indicators required
  • School Quality or student success
  • High School
  • Three academic Indictors required
  • Student achievement
  • 4-year cohort graduation rate
  • English Language Proficiency
  • Additional Indicator required
  • College and career readiness
  • Other options
  • New categories for differentiations
  • Comprehensive support
  • Any title I school in the bottom 5%
  • Any public High School with a grad rate less than 67%
  • Any title I school with a chronically underperforming subgroup
  • Targeted Support (similar to Focus Schools)
  • Any school with at least subgroups performing at the same level as “Priority Schools”
  • Any school with a low performing subgroups defined by the State of South Dakota more freedom in supporting those schools
  • School Improvement
  • Report Cards
  • Continue with flexibility waiver report cards for 2016
  • New ESSA report cards in 2017-18
  • New subgroups
  • Students in Foster Care
  • Military
  • Homeless
  • Next Steps
  • Continue to gather as much information as possible
  • Continue consultations
  • Seek input form stakeholders, public
  • Formal public comment period
  • State plan submission goal mid 2017
  • SSIP, Ambrea Sikes
  • Indicator 17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan
  • Year 1 – FFY 2013 - Delivered by April 2015
  • Year 2 – FFY 2014 – Delivered by Feb 2016
  • Year 3-6 – FFY 2015-16
  • Pilot Districts
  • Aberdeen, Andes Central, Kadoka, Rapid City, Sioux Falls, Vermillion
  • Phase 2 = Infrastructure Development
  • District size
  • Survey all staff
  • Collect
  • Support for LEA implementation of EBP’s
  • CORE Sourcebook training
  • Coaching
  • Data Workbook training
  • Dibels
  • Evaluation
  • Tracking of activities (SDPD site)
  • Team process checklist
  • Survey with 6 month follow up questions
  • Fidelity observation tool
  • Pre/post test
  • Intervention tracking forms
  • Phase 3 = reporting on progress including revisions to the SPP
  • Stakeholders
  • Who are we missing?
  • 1 pilot district dropped out
  • Should we replace?
  • Resetting baseline and targets
  • Thoughts/concerns

3. Advise the SEA in developing and implementing policies relating to the coordination of services for children with disabilities

  • Dispute Resolutions, Linda Turner
  • 2015-16 – Dispute Resolution
  • IEP Facilitation – 1 IEP facilitation
  • Mediation – 5 requests for mediation, 2 successful and 3 not held
  • Due process hearing – 1 related due process requested and successful mediation
  • 2 were requested by parent and with drawn by parents
  • Complaints : all complaints were within the timeline
  • Due Process: There were 3 due process hearing filed during 15-16 reporting period

4. Advise the SEA of unmet needs within the State in the education of children with disabilities

  • Alternate Assessment, Ben Morrison
  • Alternate Assessment to the General Assessment (Smarter Balanced)
  • For Students with the most severe cognitive disabilities
  • Simplified assessment that is still linked to the content standards
  • Participation Criteria
  • Student has a significant cognitive disability
  • The student is learning content linked to State Content Standards
  • The student requires extensive direct individualized instruction and substantial supports to achieve measureable gains in the grade and age appropriate curriculum
  • What is MSAA
  • MSAA stands for Multi-State Alternate Assessment
  • Collection of 11 states to build an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAs) for student with the most significant cognitive disabilities
  • Goal = opportunities for higher academic outcomes to leave high school for post-secondary options
  • MSAA is assessed in grades 3-8 and 11 in the subjects of Math and ELA ( reading and writing)
  • Assessment is online
  • 4 tiers of questions
  • Scripted Assessment
  • Assessment Questions Types
  • Selected Response – student selects answer choice
  • Constructed Response – student creates response
  • Open Response – student communicates answer
  • Sample Items for Math and Reading were provided
  • Historical Data for the percent of student participating in the alternate was provided, along with proficiency by disability, proficiency by LRE, and number of districts plus the percent that are testing over 1% of their districts testing population using the alternate assessment
  • Results Driven Accountability
  • SD Risk Analysis
  • Indicator 2 – Drop Out
  • Indicator 3C – Reading and Math Proficiency
  • Indicator 6 – Preschool LRE
  • Indicator 7 – Preschool Outcomes
  • Indicator 14 – Post School Outcomes
  • Child Count
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Fiscal Issues with Maintenance of Effort
  • Data Timelines and accuracy
  • Professional Development log and Internal Review
  • Draft 18 month cycle for RDA Implementation
  • 18 month cycle would allow SDDOE teams, TIE, and Sig to develop a comprehensive RDA system, using 5 to 7 districts over 18 months
  • Proposed
  • Begin process with 3 Pilot Districts: small, medium, and large (select1,2, or 3 on handout)
  • Add two or three district (level 3 only)
  • Options offered to all districts
  • Add 5 districts (level 2 or 3)

III. Goals

IV. Assignments

V. Next Meeting

  • Priority Area – Alternate Assessment
  • Presentation from Project Search
  • Federal Budget
  • April meeting scheduled for April 3rd and 4th at McCrory Gardens in Brookings, meeting will start at 1 on the 3rd and end at 5, then resume on the 4th at 8:30 and end at 11:30
  • September meeting scheduled for September 18th in Sioux Falls.

VI. Public Comment

VII. Adjourn

- Made a motion to adjourn – Stacy Haber

- 2nd Motion: Larry Ayres

Members in attendance:

Judy Hoscheid / Larry Ayers
Shelly Shaw / Laura Johnson-Frame
Sara Hoogheem / Penny McCormick-Gilles
Dr. Donna Johnson / Erin Schons
Marie Ivers / Stacy Haber
Linda Turner / Lori Larson
Betsy Schwenk

Members not in attendance:

Traci Glanzman / Bernie Grimme
Kaitlin Donohoe / Sarah Carda