ACSIP – Special Education



ACSIP – Special Education Trigger Rubric

2009-2010

District: Building:

Date Reviewed: Reviewed by:

Approved:

List District Special Education Triggers:

additional information needed (AIN)

| |Yes |No |AIN |

|1. The plan contains a special education priority | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|List special education priority on district and building plans |

|Examples: |

|One: Special Education: Identification |

|Two or More: Special Education: Identification and Disability Category |

|2. The school collects & analyzes data related to the special education priority: | | | |

|sources of data (one must be Special Education Focused Monitoring Data [SEFMD]) | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|1. The district plan must have three years of Special Education Focused Monitoring Data listed in the data section of the plan as well as other data|

|that relate to contributing factors associated with the trigger at district and school building levels. (See building level data analysis handout |

|for examples of additional data at the building level for the trigger on disproportionality.) |

| |

|2. Data must be analyzed with regard to contributing factors for each district trigger area. |

| b. data analysis identifies school/district weaknesses in triggered area(s): | |

|identification | | | |

|disability category | | | |

|least restrictive environment | | | |

|discipline | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|Data need to be analyzed with regard to contributing factors (weaknesses) as to why the district may have triggered in a particular trigger area. |

|This is done for each trigger area. Data gathering and analysis should begin at the building level and be summarized in the district plan. |

| |

|It is important to gather and analyze building level data and analyze data as to possible contributing factors at that level before including data |

|in the supporting data section of the special education priority area in the district level plan. |

| |

|Following the analysis of building level data with regard to contributing factors analysis, a hypothesis (tentative cause or causes for why the |

|district triggered in a specific area) is agreed upon by the district level committee as to why the district triggered in a particular area. |

| |

|Example: Identification - Building Level Data Analysis: |

| |

|Does the data analysis indicate whether or not the building level population is characterized by a disproportionate ratio of white to African |

|American students receiving special education services? Have possible contributing factors such as student mobility, pre-referral and referral |

|policies and practices, and or general instructional environments responsive to students at risk for failure in those environments been identified? |

| |

|Based on this analysis, interventions are identified to reduce the disproportionate ratio of white to African American students receiving special |

|education services at the building level. |

| | | | |

|3. Goals have been determined for each trigger. | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|A goal is stated for each special education trigger area separately. If the district is triggered in two areas such as, discipline and LRE, there |

|should be a separate goal for each area listed under the Goal section of the protocol. |

| |

|The goal for Identification should be stated in terms of the relative proportion of American students to white students, not in percentages or |

|numbers of African American students. (See following Comments and Examples) |

| |

| |

| |

|4. Benchmarks for each trigger have been determined & are linked to goals. | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|A benchmark is stated for each special education trigger Goal. If the district is triggered in two areas such as, least restrictive environment and|

|discipline, there should be a separate benchmark for each area listed under the Benchmark section of the protocol. |

| |

|The benchmark should include achievement and time criteria. |

| |

|Examples: |

| |

|LRE: The school district will perform within one standard deviation of the state average in the percentage of its special education students |

|receiving 80% or more of their education in general education settings by the end of the 200X-200X school year. |

| |

|Discipline: The school district will perform within one standard deviation of the state average in the number of special education students it |

|suspends/expels compared to its general education students by the end of the 200X-200X school year. |

| |

|Identification: The school district will reduce the relative proportion of African-American students and white students receiving special |

|educations services to within one standard deviation of the state average by the end of the 200X-200X school year. |

|5. Scientifically based research intervention(s) have been determined for each trigger. | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|An educational intervention is a description of a set of procedures/activities for positive change in academic, behavioral, and social learning |

|environments for all students that incorporates collaboration of: |

|School resources, which may include: principals, teachers, counselors, academic coaches, nurses, custodians, cafeteria workers, and bus drivers, |

|home and community resources. |

|Home resources which may include: parents, grandparents, siblings and other significant others. |

|Community resources, which may include: churches, parents groups, school board, PTA, libraries, local civic organizations, county health and mental|

|health organizations, and local government administration. |

| |

|Intervention(s) selected for inclusion into the school improvement plan to address the special education trigger should be based on the building |

|level school improvement committee’s data analysis re contributing factors to the identified trigger area (s). |

|Intervention(s) chosen to be implemented at the building level should be documented with research related to the effectiveness of the intervention |

|regarding the special education trigger with which the intervention is associated. |

| |

|Some example of interventions that might be used in addressing trigger areas of Identification, LRE, and Discipline are: |

|Co-teaching model |

|Differentiated instruction model |

|Cross-age tutoring |

|Positive behavioral supports model |

|Problem-solving teams (Examples) |

|Teacher Assistance Teams |

|School-Based Pre-referral Intervention Teams (SPRINT Team) |

|School and community mentoring program |

|School Based mental health program |

|In-school and after academic tutoring programs |

|Review of pre-referral, referral, evaluation, and placement procedures |

| |

|It is important to note that the above are only few examples of many different interventions that are appropriate in addressing special education |

|trigger areas. |

|6. For each intervention, actions are written in multiple, sequential steps of sufficient detail to describe the | | | |

|implementation & maintenance of the interventions. | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|Actions are associated with each intervention. Action statements should be of sufficient detail to describe the implementation, maintenance, and |

|evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention with regards to the trigger area with which they are associated. |

| |

|Example: Preferral Intervention |

| |

|All district administrators will attend an overview of School-Based Pre-referral Intervention Teams |

|Faculty who are members of building level and grade level teams will receive training in functional assessment data based problem solving using the |

|RQC problem-solving process. |

|Teams will be provided weekly meeting time, receive onsite TA, and be given the opportunity to demonstrate collaboration skills necessary for |

|implementing the problem –solving process model through case study practice and mentoring feedback. |

|Building level teams will meet weekly for 45 minutes. TA will be provided as requested. |

|Building level teams will prepare written reports (for each case referred) that include documentation of the problem-solving process, interventions,|

|and outcomes as they relate to the initial reason for referral to the team. From end of year audit of cases, staff will identify most common |

|referral problems and successful interventions. |

|Action Type: Collaboration |

|Action Type: Prof Development |

|Action Type: Evaluation |

|Action Type: Special Education |

| |

|7. Evaluation of intervention(s) | | | |

|a. Formative evaluation is a way of tracking progress toward outcomes and therefore should be done at specified | | | |

|intervals during the year rather than waiting until the end of the year. | | | |

| (1) actions specify formative evaluation procedures | | | |

| (2) actions specify what will be measured or evaluated (data sets) | | | |

| (3) actions specify when or how often progress will be evaluated | | | |

| (4) actions specify how evaluation results will be used (ex. Will they use results to make changes to the | | | |

|intervention?) | | | |

|b. Summative evaluation is a way of measuring whether projected outcomes for the intervention were achieved. | | | |

| (1) actions specify summative evaluation procedures | | | |

| (2) actions specify when summative evaluation will occur | | | |

| (3) actions specify how summative evaluation will be done | | | |

|Comments And Examples: |

| |

|The description of actions for each intervention should include information on formative and summative evaluation with regard to the effectiveness |

|of the intervention in the remediation of the trigger condition. Formative evaluation is important also in documenting that the intervention was |

|implemented with integrity. |

| |

|In the above example of the pre-referral intervention formative and summative evaluation is referenced in the following underlined statements: |

| |

|Formative: Teams will be provided weekly meeting time; receive onsite TA, and be given the opportunity to demonstrate collaboration skills |

|necessary for implementing the problem-solving model through case study practice and mentoring feedback. Building level teams will prepare written |

|reports (for each case referred) that include documentation of the problem-solving process, interventions, and outcomes as they relate to the |

|initial reason for referral to the team. |

| |

|Summative: Building level teams will prepare written reports (for each case referred) that include documentation of the problem-solving process, |

|interventions, and outcomes as they relate to the initial reason for referral to the team. From end of year audit of cases, staff will identify |

|most common referral problems and successful interventions. |

| |Yes |No |N/A |

|8. Allocation of resources | | | |

|Comments and Examples: |

| |

|Funds should be allocated at the district and building level in accordance with CEIS guidelines and with actions that are implemented to address the|

|trigger area. |

|Follow-Up Activities: |

| |

|These are a list of actions that the reviewer will do in providing feedback to the school district regarding the district and building level school |

|improvement plans. |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download