Transcript (SLI) or Specific Learning Disabilities

Time for Change:
Examining Utah Data Relating to Student
Performance
and
Implementing a State Systemic Improvement
Plan (SSIP) to Improve Student Outcomes
The Purpose of IDEA
 To ensure that all students with disabilities have
available to them a free appropriate public education
that emphasizes special education and related
services designed to meet their unique needs and
prepare them for further education,
employment, and independent living.
December 1, 2013 Child Count
75,767 Students with
Disabilities in Utah Ages 3-21
0.36% 0.33%
6.47%
2.65%
Autism
Emotional Disturbance
Speech/Language Impairment
Deaf-Blindness
23.89%
42.30%
Developmental Delay
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability
Multiple Disabilities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
0.04%
Specific Learning Disability
Traumatic Brain Injury
8.32%
0.81%
0.25%
7.96%
2.21%
4.41%
Visual Impairment
Perception Check
 Utah has approximately 76,000 students with
disabilities ages 3–21 (approximately 71,000 ages 6–
21) served with an IEP.
 Of those ages 6–21, approximately 46% are students
with an SLD, 22% have an SLI, and 10% have an Other
Health Impairment (OHI).
 Using disability category data alone, up to 86%
of Utah students with disabilities have
mild/moderate disabilities.
6-8th Grade Math Proficiency
Non- students with Disabilities
2013-2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
75%
75%
74%
71%
60%
50%
40%
47%
42%
41%
48%
47%
47%
47%
41%
43%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Ratios and Proportional
Relationships (Grade 6-8)
The Number System (Grade 6-7) Expressions and Equations
Geometry & Statistics and
/ Geometry and The Number (Grade 6-7) / Functions (Grade Probability (Grade 6) / Statistics
System (Grade 8)
8)
and Probability (Grade 7-8)
Non-SWD 6th Grade Math
Non-SWD 7th Grade Math
Non-SWD 8th Grade Math
Geometry (Grade 7)
6-8th Grade Math Proficiency
Students with Disabilities
2013-2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
31%
29%
32%
30%
20%
10%
11%
13%
7%
8%
12%
9%
12%
15%
10%
0%
Ratios and Proportional
Relationships (Grade 6-8)
The Number System (Grade 6Expressions and Equations
Geometry & Statistics and
7) / Geometry and The Number (Grade 6-7) / Functions (Grade Probability (Grade 6) / Statistics
System (Grade 8)
8)
and Probability (Grade 7-8)
SWD 6th Grade Math
SWD 7th Grade Math
SWD 8th Grade Math
Geometry (Grade 7)
Utah SAGE Results for Students with
Disabilities in Mathematics
2013–2014 by Grade
Grade Level
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Percent Proficient
22.3%
21.4%
16.1%
9.2%
9.5%
6.6%
4.5%
Utah’s 2013–2014 SAGE tests
show 42.2% of students without
disabilities in grades three
through eight and ten were
proficient in mathematics, but
just 12.9% of students with
disabilities were proficient.
29.3% achievement gap
SWD have Made Slight Gains in Math and
ELA over the Past Four Years, but no
Significant Progress
 The majority of SWD are not
proficient in math.
 ELA scores show similar
gaps, but more SWD are
being assessed than in
math.
 Not all SWD are tested in
grade-level secondary math
assessments.
 Those SWD enrolled in
general education math
courses had higher rates of
proficiency than those in
more restrictive settings.
Special educators express
lack of understanding of
core, instructional
methodology for the core,
and the need for SWD to
access the core.
Utah NEEDS to IMPROVE the OUTCOMES of
students with disabilities.
This drives the SSIP.
Access to General Education by
Grade
2014-2015
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
80-100% GenEd
40-79% GenEd
0-39% GenEd
Utah State-identified Measurable
Result (SiMR)
Increase statewide proficiency by 11.11% for
students with Speech Language
Impairments (SLI) or Specific Learning
Disabilities (SLD) in grades six through eight
on SAGE mathematics over a five-year
period.
Three Root Causes
1.
2.
3.
Administrator, teacher, parent,
and student attitudes and
behavior (resulting in some IEP
team decisions that limit grade
level core mathematics
instruction);
Teacher understanding of
mathematics standards and
effective instruction; and
An educational system that
decreases general education
instructional support and
interventions in the secondary
settings, during a time when the
mathematics core standards
become more rigorous and
abstract (i.e., Multi-Tiered System
of Supports (MTSS)).
Needed Vital Changes in Utah
 Administrators, teachers, parents, and students will see
the need to expect students with disabilities to master
mathematics content (resulting in IEP team decisions that
require and scaffold grade-appropriate Core mathematics
instruction);
 General education and special education teachers will
understand mathematics standards and effective
instruction will improve; and
 The state and local educational agencies will increase
general education instructional support and interventions
in the secondary settings, to scaffold mathematics Core
standards as they become more rigorous and abstract.
Broad Coherent Improvement
Strategies to Address Root Causes
 Inclusion in Grade-Level Core, Assessment,
Graduation Requirements, and College and Career
Ready (CCR) Plans
 Leadership
 Preservice and Inservice Professional Learning
 Data and Evidence-Based Practices and Decisions
 Active Engagement of All School Personnel
 IEP team Decisions
 Fiscal Support
What Next?
 Nine LEAs selected for SSIP reporting (Indicator 17)
 Collaboration between USOE and LEA to identify
specific schools, methods of implementation,
improvement strategies, and available funding
 Decisions made based on LEA data and PIP
 RDA
 All LEAs expected to improve (Indicator 3)
 RDA