X - ISD 622
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process: Self Review Report
Date of Report: June 30, 2007
District Name: North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale
District Number: ISD 622
Director of Special Services: Lorie Schulstad-Werk, Ed. S
Superintendent: Patty Phillips
Annual Due Date: June 30
Electronic Report Submission: mde.mncimp-sr@state.mn.us . Reports must be PC Microsoft Word( compatible
or
Send Report to: Bonnie Carlson, Compliance Supervisor
Minnesota Department of Education
Division of Compliance and Assistance
1500 Highway 36 West
Roseville, MN 55113-4266
* For districts providing record review data:
Submit individual student non-compliance information electronically or on a CD. Please do not send a hard copy.
REPORT INFORMATION
Directions/Questions:
• The report includes brief directions for each reporting section. The MNCIMP:SR Guidelines and Resources Manual, which has more detailed directions, resources, and samples for several report sections can be found on the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) web site:
• Questions pertaining to the due process/compliance components of the report may be directed to the district’s lead compliance monitor.
• Most sections of the report require a district unit of analysis. Reporting directions for each section will indicate if a district within a cooperative or education district can report on an area using a cooperative unit of analysis.
• Caution is advised when attempting to analyze data based on small sample sizes, i.e. program evaluation, record review, and stakeholder data.
Report Format:
• It is not necessary to completely fill each space; and if more space is needed, the space provided will expand accordingly.
• Do not edit or delete any part of the report format. If the district is not required to report information in a particular section, leave the section blank.
• Include the district name and number, and cooperative/education district name, if applicable on the cover page. Also include the district name in the report footer, beginning on page three. To do this, go to the “View” button on the toolbar, click on “Header and Footer”, then scroll to the bottom of the page to enter the district name. Click anywhere outside the footer to close.
• If using an acronym within the report, spell out the words completely first, with the acronym following the full name, e.g. Minnesota Department of Education (MDE).
• Do not include charts, appendices, or any attachments with this report.
• If possible, submit the report electronically to the email address on the cover page of the report. If electronic submission is not possible, mail two copies of the report to the address on the cover page of the report.
• Email the report by June 30 each year to mde.mncimp-sr@state.mn.us . All reports must be PC Microsoft Word( compatible.
|1. District Demographics Directions |
|Update the district demographic charts annually. |
|Cooperatives: report each district’s demographics and general information/significant trends or changes individually. Indicate the district name for each profile reported. |
SPP/APR Part B Indicators 9&10
|DISTRICT CHILD COUNT DECEMBER 1, 2005 |
|Total |Percentage of |Total Part B |Percentage of |Total Early Childhood |
|Student |Total |Special Education Enrollment |Part B (K-21) |Special Education Enrollment |
|Enrollment (General Education plus Special |Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity |(K-21) |Special Education Minority Enrollment |(Part C and Pre-K) |
|Education) |(General Education plus Special Education)| |by Race/Ethnicity | |
|MNCIMP:SR Profile |
|Starting with the first year of planning, indicate the number of years the district/cooperative has participated in Self-Review. |
|If assistance is needed, contact your district’s lead compliance specialist. |
|Update this section annually. |
|For cooperatives or education districts, report each member district’s information individually as appropriate. |
|Report any extenuating circumstances that impact the district demographics or disability demographics, i.e. open-enrolled student population, opening of a new group home in the district, etc. |
|Number of Years in Self-Review: |Date of last MDE Validation: |Date of next MDE Validation: |
|Six years (April 2001 – plan year) |May 22, 2003 |2008-2009 (Ken Kalamaha, MDE) |
|2. District General Information and Significant Trends or Changes |
|North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale (ISD622) is a metropolitan suburb just east of St. Paul. The district includes 11 non-public schools within its boundaries. ISD 622 is completing the fifth year of a 4 year |
|disability specific review cycle of the district CIMP plan. A MN CIMP full compliance review of all disability categories was conducted in February 2001. A Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) validation was |
|conducted in May 2003. ISD 622 submitted and received approval of the Implementation & Improvement Report in July 2003. An amended MDE Validation Report was received in February 2004. A district focus was placed |
|on staff development to improve the areas of citation. A special education fiscal monitoring occurred during the 2005-06 school year. |
| |
|The district general education population is declining in enrollment and the population of students with disabilities continues to increase. The total district special education population of 11.7% in 2006-07 |
|remains below the state average for students with disabilities; however, when eliminating the non-public school population from the count, the percentage of students with disabilities in kindergarten through grade |
|12 increases to 13.3%. This 11.7% represents an increase in the district special education child count from the 2004-05 school year. There are a significant number of group homes per capita in Maplewood as well as |
|two Ramsey County shelters. The population is quite mobile especially for a couple of the elementary schools in the district. |
| |
|During the 2006-07 school year work has been done to begin addressing the disproportional representation of African Americans in LD/EBD/ DCD in the school district. Almost half of the African Americans being served |
|in special education (44% or 113 of 257 students) moved into ISD 622 with an IEP during the current school year. Carver elementary has been involved in a project with the University of MN (U of MN) and the |
|Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) to begin addressing this issue. Several training modules have been held for the staff at Carver elementary. Several teachers attended the free classes at the U of MN in June|
|of 2006 and 28 additional staff members are attending the June 2007 University of MN course offerings on culture and ethnicity. |
| |
|Response to Intervention (RtI) was another initiative. Matt Burns from the University of Minnesota did some training with the administrative staff as well as with the staff from Webster elementary school as they |
|will be piloting the RTI initiative in the coming 2007-08 school year. |
| |
|Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports (PBIS) was also a focus for the 2006-07 school year. After visiting other school districts who have implemented PBIS and having Char Ryan out to meet with interested staff|
|in the district, all three Middle Schools have voted to be a part of the PBIS initiative and MDE has agreed to include them in the training for PBIS during the 2007-08 school year. |
| |
|The district continues to expand the high school Next Step Transition program which will serve up to 64 students in 2007-08. This is being done in order to reduce the number of students being bussed out of the |
|district to be served in Intermediate District 916 programs. The number of students getting such services has been reduced by 61 students in the past three years. This effort allows more students to be served |
|within the school district and closer to their neighborhood schools as well as being more cost effective. A significant re-organization effort occurred during this school year as the number of students being served|
|in the most restrictive elementary classes for severe to profound students will be reduced from 6 programs to 3 programs in the coming school year and at one middle school the number was reduced from 4 to 3 with a |
|focus to try to do more work with students in less restrictive environments. A better continuum of services will be available in each building at the elementary school buildings and the middle schools within the |
|school district so more students can remain in their neighborhood schools. In addition, as a cost saving measure, the district withdrew from the four-district Early Intervention Alliance (EIA) and will serve its |
|resident infants and toddlers with disabilities in a newly organized birth-to-age-five Early Childhood Special Education Program. |
| |
|Training occurred for staff members on the issue of settings and how the settings should be listed on the IEP’s as staff are still confusing settings with levels. The information in the above paragraph should help |
|move toward fewer students in less restrictive settings but it will take a year or so before these changes begin to show up with the child count. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|3. MNCIMP:SR Membership Selection Process |
|The district’s CIMP leadership team was established during the first year of self-review (2000-2001). The Director of Special Services solicited members who represented various grade levels and positions from across|
|the district. A parent representative joined the group beginning in the 2003-2004 school year. Members were asked to commit to a one to four year rotation. Upon a member’s departure, a replacement is sought to fill|
|the position. This is accomplished through the Special Education Advisory Committee’s (SEAC) as well as the monitoring survey, and in some cases, by asking for teacher and administrative volunteers during annual |
|special education cluster meetings, and personal phone calls to potential candidates. |
| |
|The leadership team was split up into two different groups. One part of the team consisted of Special Education Coordinators who lead the File Review Team. The Director of Special Services and Special Education |
|Supervisor lead the Program Evaluation Team. A Special Education Coordinator leads the compliance team. The membership selection process and membership responsibilities were reviewed during the 2006-2007 school |
|year. It was decided that adhoc members join the leadership committee on an annual basis to aid in planning and implementation of specific initiatives. It was also determined that the entire special education |
|coordination team be regular members to ensure continuation of and focus on critical goals. |
|3. Leadership Team Formation and Membership |
|Team Member Name |District Position |Term Length |Membership Responsibility |
|Lorie Schulstad-Werk |Director Sp. Services |Ongoing |Active: Co-facilitator/District-wide |
|Carol Erickson |El. Principal |3-4 years |Active: Elementary Schools |
|Jackie Schumacher |ECSE Coordinator |Ongoing |Active: Record Review/Compliance/Program Improvement ECSE |
|Sue Bartling |Academic Dean |3-4 years |Active: Secondary Schools |
|Julie Koehler |Special Ed. Supervisor |Ongoing |Active: Transitions/mental health |
|Joanne Karch |Special Ed. Tchr. Elem. |2 years |Active: Elementary School Resource |
|Ben Kusch |Asst. Principal- High School |3 years |Active: Secondary Schools |
|Cory Graham |Sp. Ed. Supervisor |Ongoing |Active: Facilitator/District-wide |
|Steve Anderson |Psych. John Glenn, nonpub. |***** |Adhoc: Psychometrics |
|J. R. (SEAC rep) |Parent |1-2 years |Active: Parent perspective |
|Duane Woeste |Sp Ed. Coordinator |Ongoing |Active: Record Review/Compliance |
|Shawn Bromeland |Assistant Principal |3-4 years |Active: Secondary Schools |
|Dr. Carol Hokanson |Sp. Ed. Coordinator |Ongoing |Active: PBIS, Instruction and Service Delivery |
|Dr. Rick Hamann |Sp. Ed. Coordinator |Ongoing |New: 07-08 RTI Initiative |
| | | | |
|4. MNCIMP:SR Parental & Community Involvement |
|How are parents and community involved in the MNCIMP:SR planning process, analysis of the data, and Action Planning process? |
|Findings of each year’s self study are shared with the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) and their feedback is utilized to assist in the development of an updated action plan. Additionally, a parent |
|representative has been active on the CIMP leadership team for three years. This year, the CIMP leadership team assisted in the analysis of student test data, and referral data and generated some possible priorities|
|and activities for the 2007-2008 school year. Information from the district’s Special Education Curriculum Committees was used to assist in the district’s continuing efforts to ensure that well researched curriculum|
|is incorporated in the action plan. Coordinators from the Special Services and Curriculum/Staff Development departments review and refine the action plan annually. |
|4. MNCIMP:SR Parental & Community Involvement |
|How is your district’s MNCIMP:SR status and progress disseminated to parents, community, and other stakeholder groups? |
|The district’s planning and implementation activities are reported to district staff during opening workshop meetings and building level meetings with special education coordinators. Activities are reported to the |
|SEAC for further dissemination to the community. The SEAC most often reports information through the principal newsletters and occasionally, via memos from the special education department. Relevant portions of the |
|report are shared with cabinet members at regular meetings. The district posts the CIMP Implementation and Improvement report on its website annually. When program improvement efforts are questioned by various |
|stakeholder groups, the CIMP plan is brought out to guide the discussion and decision-making process. |
|5. Special Education Mission and Belief Statements |
| |
|Mission Statement: |Work collaboratively to offer services that respectfully provide the support needed to maximize the learner’s potential for independence, self-advocacy and a healthy and productive |
| |life style. |
|Belief Statements: |All students can learn and are entitled to a quality education. |
| |The education of students is a partnership among special services, general education staff, interagency staff, parents, the students and the community. |
| |Students and staff deserve physical and emotional safety. |
| |Students will make academic progress when specialized and individualized instruction is provided and curriculum is appropriate and meaningful to meet the unique needs of each |
| |student. |
|Have you changed the mission and belief statements from your previous report? |YES | |NO |X | |
|If yes, provide rationale for the change. |
|Special Education Goal Statements |
|Describe the process for development of the goal statements: |
|Annually, the goals are reviewed and revised if needed by the MN CIMP leadership team and district special education coordinators and they are distributed to special education staff and the Special Education |
|Advisory Council for further input and editing if needed. The goals are then shared with the Special Education staff at the opening staff meeting. |
| |
|Goal Statements: |1. Improve educational results for children and youth with disabilities through the provision of effective special education instruction and related services by providing |
| |meaningful staff development opportunities, continuing the work of special education subject area committees, and promoting a district climate of inclusiveness for all students. |
| | |
| |2. Reduce all areas of non-compliance identified in record reviews. |
| | |
| |3. Increase graduation rate and decrease dropout rate (effective 2007-2008) |
|Have you changed the goal statements from your previous report? |YES |X |NO | |
|If yes, provide rationale for the change. Previous goal number three-- to increase the identification of infants and toddlers with disabilities was achieved. District data suggests improvement is needed to more |
|closely align graduation and drop out rates to State targets. |
|6. Program Evaluation Directions: Student Achievement |
|Report and provide an analysis for any grade and subject in which the district did not demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the special education population. Small districts of similar size within a |
|cooperative or education district may be grouped for reporting purposes. |
|Select the degree of need (high, medium or low) based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. For each area designated as a high need, linkage with|
|the District’s Improvement Plan under NCLB for the following school year must be provided (see Future Action Plan section of this report). |
SPP/APR Part B Indicator 3
Did your district make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the entire special education subgroup in 2005-2006? (See district report card.) (Check one)
Yes ___X__
No _____
NA (cell size too small to calculate AYP for Special Education) _____
If your district missed AYP last year for the first time, it is possible that next year your district will officially be in “needs improvement” status. How do you plan to improve the proficiency levels of students with disabilities? Respond below.
(See “District Data Profile” online for information needed to complete this section)
|Grade Level |Skill Assessed |Analysis |Degree of Need |
|(enter rate) |(check) | |(check one) |
|3 ____ 4 ___ | |Are there any extenuating circumstances? |High ____ |
|5 ____ 6 ___ |Math ____ |How are you linking into your district’s Improvement Plan under NCLB? | |
|7 ____ 8 ___ | |Are there additional steps you plan to take? If yes, document details in the Future Action Plan in this report. |Medium ____ |
| | | | |
|11 ____ | | |Low ____ |
|3 ____ 4 ___ | |Are there any extenuating circumstances? |High ____ |
|5 ____ 6 ___ |Reading ____ |How are you linking into your district’s Improvement Plan under NCLB? | |
|7 ____ 8 ___ | |Are there additional steps you plan to take? If yes, document details in the Future Action Plan in this report. |Medium ____ |
| | | | |
|10 ____ | | |Low ____ |
|Program Evaluation Directions: High School Graduation, Dropout & Suspensions/Expulsions |
|Report and provide analysis for any performance areas where the district performance falls below the state and/or rates. Small districts of similar size within a cooperative or education district may be grouped for |
|reporting purposes. |
|Select the degree of need (high, medium or low) based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. Each area designated as a high need must have a |
|corresponding Action Plan for the following school year (see Future Action Plan section of this report). |
| | | | | |
|Reporting Categories |SPP/APR |2005-2006 |Analysis |Degree of Need |
| |Indicator |State Data | |(check one) |
| | | | | |
|Graduation Rates |Part B |State Rate = 82.43% |District Rate ___75%_______ |High __X__ |
| |1 | |At or above state rate? Yes ____ No __X_ | |
| | |State Target = |At or above state target? Yes ____ No _X__ |Medium ____ |
| | |81.95% |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
| | |(Special Education | |Low ____ |
| | |Rate) |This is a significant change from the previous school year so we question accuracy. In 2006 our district graduated | |
| | | |84.48% of the special education students which was above the state rate. Assuming 75% is accurate, an action plan would| |
| | | |be needed. | |
|Dropout Rates |Part B |State Rate = 4.89% |District Rate ____6.9%_______ |High __X__ |
| |2 | |At or below state rate? Yes ____ No __X__ | |
| | |State Target = 4.55%|At or below state target? Yes____ No _X__ |Medium ____ |
| | |(Special Education |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
| | |Rate) | |Low ____ |
| | | |The drop-out rate for ISD 622 special education students was 4.89% last year so again the 6.9% represents a significant | |
| | | |change and is one that does not appear to be accurate. If however, it is an action plan would be required. | |
| | | | | |
|Suspension and Expulsion |Part B |State Rate = 1.25% |District Rate ____.2%_______ |High ____ |
|Rates |4 | |At or below state rate? Yes __X__ No _X___ | |
|>10 days | |State Target = 1.8%|At or below state target? Yes__X__ No ____ |Medium ____ |
| | |(Special Education |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
| | |Rate) | |Low ___X_ |
| | | | | |
|Program Evaluation Directions: Child Find & Least Restrictive Environment |
|Report and provide analysis for any performance areas where the district falls below the state target and/or state rate. Small districts of similar size within a cooperative or education district may be grouped for |
|reporting purposes. Please note that this data is provided at the administrative unit level in Part C sections. |
|Data can be found on the MDE website at |
|Select the degree of need (high, medium or low) based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. Each area designated as a high need must have a |
|corresponding Action Plan for the following school year (see Future Action Plan section of this report). |
|Reporting Category |SPP/APR |2005-2006 |Program Evaluation Analysis |Degree of Need |
| |Indicator |State Data | |(check one) |
|Part C: |Part C |State Rate = .46% |Administrative Unit Rate ____1.55%_________ |High ____ |
|Child Find |5 | |At or above state rate? Yes __x__ No ___ | |
|Birth-1 | |State Target = .45% |At or above state target? Yes __x__ No ___ |Medium ____ |
| | | |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
| | | | |Low __X__ |
|Part C: |Part C |State Rate = 1.57% |Administrative Unit Rate _______2.19%______ |High ____ |
|Child Find |6 | |At or above state rate? Yes _x___ No ___ | |
|Birth-2 | |State Target = 1.56%|At or above state target? Yes __x__ No ___ |Medium ____ |
| | | |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
| | | | |Low __X__ |
|Part C: |Part C |State Rate = |Administrative Unit Rate ______91.1%_______ |High ____ |
|Natural Environment |2 |90.3% |At or above state rate? Yes __x__ No ___ | |
|(ages 0-3) | | |At or above state target? Yes __x__ No ___ |Medium ____ |
| | |State Target = 89.5%|If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
| | | | |Low __X__ |
|Part B: |Part B |State Rate = |Administrative Unit Rate ___37.7%___ |High __X__ |
|Pre-School Settings LRE (age|6 |50.5% |At or below state rate? Yes __X__ No ___ | |
|3-5) | | |At or below state target? Yes __X__ No ___ |Medium ___ |
|environments with typically | |State Target = 58% |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
|developing peers (including | | | |Low ____ |
|settings 1, 3, & 4) | | |While we have increased our inclusion rates from 31.4% to 37.7%, we continue to search for viable inclusion options for | |
| | | |young children in our district. During the 06-07 school year we added services in more area Head Start and child care | |
| | | |programs. | |
|Reporting Category |SPP/APR |2005-2006 |Program Evaluation Analysis |Degree of Need |
| |Indicator # |State Data | |(check one) |
|Part B: |Part B |State Rate= 60.40% |District Rate 49.5% |High __X__ |
|Settings/LRE |5A |State Target Rate = |At or above state rate? Yes ___ No __X__ | |
|School Age (6-21) | |61% |At or above state target? Ye s___ No __X__ |Medium ____ |
| | | |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
|Removed from class less than| | | |Low ____ |
|21% of day | | |A review of Setting I data for the last three years of 46% (2004-2005), 48.5% (2005-2006) and 49.8% (2006-2007) | |
| | | |revealed a gradual increase in the number of students with disabilities being served in their regular class the | |
| | | |majority of the time. Although the district did not reach the state target rate, building principals and staff are| |
| | | |working to increase their capacity to serve students in their home schools and in the least restrictive | |
| | | |environment. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |For the 2007-2008 school year, one center-based program in the middle schools was reduced to make way for a new | |
| | | |service delivery model which emphasizes serving students in the least restrictive environment. | |
|Part B: |Part B |State Rate= 4.74% |District Rate 10.3% |High __X__ |
|Settings/LRE |5C | |At or below state rate? Yes ____ No __X__ | |
|School Age (6-21) | |State Target Rate = |At or below state target? Yes____ No __X__ |Medium ____ |
| | |5.4% |If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. | |
|Served in separate schools, | | | |Low ____ |
|residential placements, or | | |The district did not meet the state or target rate for students served in a Federal Setting IV environment. | |
|homebound or hospital | | | | |
|placements | | |Several factors impact the significant increase from 5.1 to 10.3% | |
| | | |the number of group homes that have moved into to the district in the past 3-4 years bring more students with | |
| | | |significant needs | |
| | | |services are provided based on already existing IEP’s and IEP’s are being written to address the more serious needs| |
| | | |the students are presenting. | |
| | | |courts, human services and other agencies are involved in making some out of district placements. | |
| | | |Better reporting practices than in prior years | |
| | | | | |
| | | |In 2006-2007, the district continued to bring more students back to the home district from more restrictive | |
| | | |placements. | |
| | | |2003-04 school year: 144 students placed in Intermediate school district 916 programs that are setting 3 and | |
| | | |higher. | |
| | | |2005-2006 school year: 88 students were being served in out of district programs. | |
| | | |2006-2007 school year: 82 students were being served in out of district programs | |
| | | | | |
| | | |For the 2007-2008 school year, the district budgeted and staffed for a multiple needs Setting III program for 8th | |
| | | |grade moderate severe students who would typically be sent to a Federal Setting IV program during their 8th grade | |
| | | |year. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Reporting Consistency: The district continues to work with staff on correctly reporting setting data. In 2006-2007,| |
| | | |the district reviewed the accuracy of the calculating and reporting of setting data at the opening fall workshops | |
| | | |with staff. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Although data suggests that the district serves more students in more restrictive settings than the state target | |
| | | |rate, our findings will not reflect a decrease until data is reported for the years we implemented our strategies | |
| | | |to serve more students in less restrictive settings. | |
|Program Evaluation Directions: Early Childhood Outcome Data [pic] |
|Report and provide analysis for any performance areas where the district falls below the state target. Small districts of similar size within a cooperative or education district may be grouped for reporting |
|purposes. |
|Data can be found on the MDE website at |
|Select the degree of need (high, medium or low) based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. Each area designated as a high need must have a |
|corresponding Action Plan for the following school year (see Future Action Plan section of this report). |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Reporting Category |SPP/APR |2005-2006 |Program Evaluation Analysis |Degree of Need |
| |Indicator |State Data | |(check one) |
|Parts B and C: |Part B # |State Targets = |A. IFSP documentation of transition planning – |High ____ |
|Transition | |A. 100% compliance |Administrative Unit Rate____100%_________ | |
| |Part C |B. 100% compliance |At state target of 100%? Yes __x__ No _____ |Medium ___ |
|A. Documentation of |8 | |If not at the state target, provide an analysis. | |
|transition planning on IFSP | | | |Low __X__ |
|B. Transition conferences | | | | |
|occurred during regulatory | | |B. Transition conferences occurred – | |
|timeframe | | |Administrative Unit Rate_____0%_reported by MDE, but actually 100%______ | |
| | | |At state target of 100%? Yes __x__ No _____ | |
| | | |If not at the state target, provide an analysis. | |
| | | | | |
| | | |While transition conferences did actually occur within the federal timeline requirements, the electronic system for | |
| | | |recording those conferences was flawed. It has since been corrected and training will occur for new staff on July 9, | |
| | | |2007. | |
|Part C: |Part C |State Target = |Administrative Unit Rate _____94.1%________ |High ____ |
|Timely Evaluations |7 |100% compliance |At state target of 100%? Yes ____ No __x____ | |
| | | |If not at the state target, provide an analysis. |Medium ___ |
|45-day timeline | | | | |
| | | |The district exceeds the state, regional and strata rates yet is not at the target of 100% compliance. An analysis of|Low __X__ |
| | | |the IFSPs over the 45 day timeline indicated that there was an error in data entry for families who refused or | |
| | | |delayed evaluations of their children. Additionally, there was some difficulty with scheduling around major winter | |
| | | |and spring breaks. | |
|7. Stakeholder Information Directions |
|Data collection efforts must either include all members of a stakeholder group or a representative sample of the group. |
|The representative sample must provide a valid sample size to be able to generalize the data. |
|A tool to use to determine an appropriate sample size can be found at: . |
|Indicate the format used to collect stakeholder data. |
|Report the sampling method(s) used, as part of the analysis. |
|Disaggregate all Part B and Part C responses and report separately. |
|Include the number of stakeholders identified for the initial contact. |
|Include the number of stakeholders that participated. |
|Include the number of participants necessary for a valid sample. |
|Summarize findings for each stakeholder group. |
| |
|FAMILY SURVEY: QUESTION 8 Include the following data specific to question 8 on the MDE survey: |
|Report Part B data only. |
|Record the number of families that responded to question 8. |
|Provide the number of families that responded for each rating 1 through 5, e.g. 2 marked 1; 0 marked 2; 7 marked 3; 75 marked 4; 250 marked 5. |
| |
|Select the degree of need (high, medium or low) to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. |
|Each area designated as a high need must include a corresponding Action Plan for the following school year. (See Future Action Plan.) |
|Stakeholders |Stakeholder Data |School Year(s) Data |Degree of |
| |Findings |Collected |Need |
| | | |(check one) |
|Family |Part C: SPP/APR Indicator #3 | |High ____ |
|Part C |# surveys distributed = | | |
| |# surveys returned = | |Medium ____ |
| | | | |
| |During 2004-2005, twelve Washington County families either completed a survey or participated in a focus group in an effort to |2004-2005 |Low __X__ |
| |provide feedback about the IEIC service coordination model. At the time of submission of the CIMP report, those findings were still | | |
| |being reviewed by the IEIC and were not yet ready for dissemination. | | |
| | | | |
| |During the summer and fall of 2005, the Washington County IEIC reviewed the responses of the parent surveys. Families indicated that | | |
| |they were largely satisfied with their services and involvement in the IFSP process. They also made suggestions for improvement. As a|2005-2006 | |
| |result of those suggestions as well as information gained from surveying the service providers, a new service coordination model was | | |
| |implemented during the 2005-2006 school year. Survey summary tables and reports are available upon request. (See the Action Plan | | |
| |section of this report for progress made). | | |
|Stakeholders |Stakeholder Data |School Year(s) Data |Degree of |
| |Findings |Collected |Need |
| | | |(check one) |
|Family | Part B SPP/APR Indicator #8 |2003-2004 (EBD/DCD) |High ____ |
|Part B |# surveys distributed = 330 distributed | | |
| |# surveys returned =38 returned; 12% return rate |2004-2005 |Medium ____ |
| | |(SLD) | |
| |# surveys distributed = 197 distributed | |Low __X__ |
| |# surveys returned = 52 returned; 26% return rate | | |
| | | | |
|General Educator Staff |# surveys distributed = 142 distributed |2003-2004 (EBD/DCD) |High ____ |
| |# surveys returned = 75 returned; 53% return rate | | |
| | |2004-2005 |Medium ____ |
| |# surveys distributed = 119 distributed |(SLD) | |
| |# surveys returned =44 returned; 37% return rate | |Low __X__ |
|Paraprofessional |During the 2005-2006 school year, the Director of Special Education met with approximately 15 paraprofessionals to discuss their |2005-2006 |High ____ |
| |concerns and training needs. Some highlights of the discussion were are follows: | | |
| |-need to see IEP’s or at least have input from the teacher about the student(s) | |Medium _X__ |
| |-their performance evaluation is often way too little and too late | | |
| |-would like Wayne Urbaniak back to meet with paras and their cooperating special education teacher | |Low ____ |
| |-they indicated they really like their jobs but would like to feel more respected and valued. | | |
|Special Education Staff |Part C | |High ____ |
|Part C | | | |
| |Staff serving Washington County families participated in a focus group in an effort to provide feedback about the IEIC service |2004-2005 |Medium __X__ |
| |coordination model. At the time of submission of the CIMP report, those findings were still being reviewed by the IEIC and were not |(Part C) | |
| |yet ready for dissemination in 2004-2005. | |Low ____ |
| | | | |
| |District residents reside in two IEICs. Therefore, staff who provide services to families from both counties will be surveyed and | | |
| |those results analyzed during the district’s 2006 self-study. | | |
| | | | |
| |A one-hour focus group was conducted at Ralph Reeder Center with the participation of five service providers from the Early |2005-2006 | |
| |Intervention Alliance (EIA). All had experience working with ISD 622 families for several years. |(Part C) | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |For each of the seven areas of the interagency service coordination process, participants were asked to share what worked (the | | |
| |strengths of the current model), what didn’t work (the weaknesses of the current model), and to suggest any changes to improve | | |
| |efficiency and effectiveness of the service coordination model. The seven areas included: referral process, initial visit, | | |
| |preparation for evaluation and IFSP meetings, post IFSP meeting/service, periodic review, annual IFSP, transition/closure. | | |
| | | | |
| |The members of the focus group agreed that there was a family focus to service coordination. They believed that service coordinators | | |
| |want to be involved with families throughout the IFSP process to ensure that they have access to resources in the community. | | |
| |Suggestions for improvement centered on developing clear parameters for scheduling family visits, identifying strategies for | | |
| |effective communication, ensuring due process compliance and building meeting facilitation skills. To that end, they suggested | | |
| |regularly scheduled meetings or discussions with Service Coordinators that focus on specific content areas. They also suggested the | | |
| |creation of office space for Service Coordinators to use on an “as needed” basis at the EIA Beaver Lake Education Center site. | | |
| | | | |
| |During the summer and fall of 2005, the Washington County IEIC reviewed the responses of the parent and staff surveys. Several themes| | |
| |emerged from the analysis. They clustered around issues of communication, unique family focus, information/resources, and process. | | |
| |As a result of interpreting results from the study, a new service coordination model was developed and implemented during the | | |
| |2005-2006 school year. (See the Action Plan section of this report for progress made). | | |
|Special Education Staff |Part B | |High ____ |
|Part B | | | |
| |# surveys distributed = 185 distributed |2003-2004 (EBD/DCD) |Medium ____ |
| |# surveys returned = 83 returned; 45% return rate | | |
| | |2004-2005 |Low __X__ |
| |# surveys distributed = 45 distributed |(SLD) | |
| |# surveys returned = 18 returned; 40% return rate | | |
|Administrator | | |High ____ |
|(Optional) |# surveys distributed = 37 distributed |2003-2004 | |
| |# surveys returned = 28 returned; 76% return rate |(EBD/DCD) |Medium ____ |
| | | | |
| | | |Low __X__ |
| | | | |
Part B and Part C SPP/APR (all)
|8. Record Review Directions |
|Records selected for review must be a demographically representative sampling of a district's students in special education. |
|The representative areas include, but are not limited to, disability, race/ethnicity, age and gender. |
|The Part B record sample and the Part C record sample must be determined separately. |
|A tool to use to determine an appropriate sample size can be found at: . |
| |
|Report a summary of findings for each TSES area that has non-compliance identified in one or more student files. |
|Include the total number of records identified with non-compliance and the total number of records reviewed, e.g. “5 of 10 secondary transition records lacked a secondary transition evaluation by age 14 or grade |
|nine.” |
|Indicate if the records reviewed were Part C or Part B. The record review data must be reported separately. |
|Under the “Compliance Status” column, check “individual student non-compliance” if one or more student records were identified. |
|Check “MDE systemic non-compliance,” if non-compliance is identified based on compliance findings from a variety of sources including but not limited to compliance review of individual student records, stakeholder |
|survey responses and complaints identified within the monitoring cycle. |
| |
|Each TSES area listed as “MDE non-compliance” must be included in the Action Plan. |
|For each student file identified with non-compliance, submit the individual student information electronically using an Access Monitoring Database report by student and citation. If the report is not available, the |
|information can be burned on a CD, which can be sent to MDE. |
|Do not send paper copies of the individual student data. |
|Record Review Process and Sampling Procedures |
|Describe the district’s sampling procedures and record review process: See over. |
| |
| |
| |
|TSES Reference |TSES Compliance Area |Part |Part |Record Review Data |Compliance |
|Number | |B |C | |Status |
|9. Longitudinal Review Directions (optional) |
|Include the number of longitudinal records reviewed. |
|Internal consistency reporting pertains to each indicator used to determine the consistency of documentation from initial or prior evaluation to the most current evaluation. Secondly, internal consistency addresses |
|whether or not the three consecutive IEP were consistent with the IEP process. Address the quality indicators as strengths or weaknesses found in the review. |
|Conferred benefit pertains to the data used to determine whether the student benefits from his/her special education program and service over time. Determine if growth was evident from evaluation to evaluation and |
|across three consecutive IEP. |
|Determine the degree of need (high, medium or low) based upon the urgency to implement change as determined by district criteria established by the leadership team. Each area designated as a high need must have a |
|corresponding Action Plan for the following school year (See Future Action Plan section of this report). |
|Refer to the 2004 MNCIMP:SR Guidelines and Resources Manual for additional directions, sampling procedures, and resources. |
|Reporting Categories |Longitudinal Review (optional) |Degree of Need |
| |Analysis |(check one) |
|Internal Consistency | |High ____ |
| | |Medium ____ |
| | |Low ____ |
|Conferred Benefit | |High ____ |
| | |Medium ____ |
| | |Low ____ |
| | | |
|11. Current Year Action Planning Directions |
|*Use the information reported in the district’s prior year Action Plan(s), reported as high need and/or non-compliant, to complete the following components, identified by an asterisk (*) in the left side of the |
|chart below: |
|*Goal Statement: Identify goal as stated in prior year’s MNCIMP:SR Report. |
|*Desired Outcome: Provide a measurable statement of the expected outcome. “What will change as a result of strategies and activities implemented?” |
|*Strategy(s): Describe strategies employed to achieve the desired outcome, e.g. training, staff development, policies, task force committees, etc. |
|*What collected data will give evidence of progress? Describe what data will be collected to determine if the outcome has been met or if progress is being made. |
| |
|For the current year’s report, complete the “Progress/Results Analysis” and “Status” sections of the chart below based on the prior year’s Action Plan(s) to determine if progress has been made in meeting the desired|
|outcome. |
|Progress/Results Analysis: Report data that was collected to determine whether the outcome was met. |
|Status: Analyze results and determine progress from the prior year’s Action Plan(s) in meeting the desired outcome. Indicate whether the outcome was met, will need to be continued, or other. If the outcome was not |
|met and will be continued, address the outcome in the next year’s Action Plan (see next page) and note any changes in strategies. If “Other” is checked, provide an explanation in the “Progress/Results Analysis” |
|section. |
| |
|Note: To insert additional lines to an Action Plan, tab after the last column and a new row will automatically be inserted. To insert additional Action Plan charts, insert a page break after the chart, then copy and|
|paste the blank Action Plan chart into the new page. |
|Progress on Existing Action Plan(s) * |
|*Goal Statement: | 1. Improve educational results for children and youth with disabilities through the provision of effective special education instruction and related services by providing meaningful |
| |staff development opportunities, continuing the work of special education subject area committees, and creating a district climate of inclusiveness for all students. |
|Complete this section using the Action Plans from the district’s existing MNCIMP:SR report from the prior year. |Complete this section for next year’s report. |
|*Desired Outcome |*Strategies |
|Complete this section using the Action Plans from the district’s existing MNCIMP:SR report from the prior year. |Complete this section for next year’s report. |
|*Desired Outcome |*Strategies |
|Complete this section using the Action Plans from the district’s existing MNCIMP:SR report from the prior year. |Complete this section for next year’s report. | |
|*Desired Outcome |
|Complete the following components to address new areas identified in the current report as high need and /or as non-compliant: |
|Goal Statement: Identify goal as stated on MNCIMP:SR Report. |
|Desired Outcome: Provide a measurable statement of the expected outcome. “What will change as a result of strategies and activities implemented?” |
|Strategy(s): Describe strategies employed to achieve the desired outcome. (E.g. training, staff development, policies, task force committees, etc.) |
|What collected data will give evidence of progress? Describe what data will be collected to determine if the outcome has been met or if progress is being made. |
| |
|The following sections should be left blank for the current report, and completed when submitting the MNCIMP:SR Report next year. |
|Progress/Results Analysis: Report data that was collected to determine whether the outcome was met. |
|Status: Analyze results and determine progress from the prior year’s Action Plan(s) in meeting the desired outcome. Indicate with an “X” whether the outcome was met, will need to be continued, or other. If the |
|outcome was not met and will be continued, address the outcome in the next year’s Action Plan and note any changes in strategies. If “Other” is checked, provide an explanation in the “Progress/Results Analysis” |
|section. |
| |
|Note: To insert additional lines to an Action Plan, tab after the last column and a new row will automatically be inserted. To insert additional Action Plan charts, insert a page break after the chart, then copy and|
|paste the blank Action Plan chart into the new page. |
|2007.2008 Future Year Action Plan(s) |
|Goal Statement: | |
| |1. Improve educational results for children and youth with disabilities through the provision of effective special education instruction and related services by providing meaningful staff|
| |development opportunities, continuing the work of special education subject area committees, and creating a district climate of inclusiveness for all students. |
|Complete this section using the Action Plans from the current report. |Complete this section prior to submitting next year’s report. |
|Desired Outcome |Strategies |What collected data will give evidence of |Progress/Results Analysis |Status |X |
| | |progress? | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
| | | | |Outcome Met | |
|Identification and elimination of cultural |Study disaggregated data relative to |Examination of Weighted Risk Ratios for | | | |
|and racial barriers for referral to special |district initiated assessments on |2006-2007 as reported by the MDE. | | | |
|education and provide evidence of change in |African American students to determine | | | | |
|district policies and procedures. |disproportional representation (see | | | | |
| |attached report per Elizabeth Watkins).| | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
| | | | | | |
|2007.2008 Future Year Action Plan(s) |
|Goal Statement: | |
| |1. Improve educational results for children and youth with disabilities through the provision of effective special education instruction and related services by providing meaningful staff|
| |development opportunities, continuing the work of special education subject area committees, and creating a district climate of inclusiveness for all students. |
|Complete this section using the Action Plans from the current report. |Complete this section prior to submitting next year’s report. |
|Desired Outcome |Strategies |What collected data will give evidence of |Progress/Results Analysis |Status |X |
| | |progress? | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
| | | | |Outcome Met | |
|Implement year one and prepare for year two |Through implementation of a three-year |Student attendance area data. | | | |
|of service delivery model changes at the |attrition model, students with mild to | | | | |
|middle school level. |moderate cognitive disabilities will be| | | | |
| |educated in their neighborhood schools.| | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|Complete compliance and program |Record review using random sample. |Record review data and summary of program | |Outcome Met | |
|effectiveness study of district’s current | |evaluation findings. | | | |
|special education services to non-public |Review referral process and service | | | | |
|schools in district 622. |delivery model for elementary, middle | | | | |
| |and high school students. | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| |Involve building principals and teacher| | | | |
| |stakeholders in guided discussions | | | | |
| |and/or focus groups. | | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
| | | | |Outcome Met | |
|Implement use of RtI and PBIS in identified |Continue training of staff and building|Individual student or building-wide | | | |
|pilot sites district wide. |administration at implementation sites.|positive behavior intervention supports | | | |
| | |available upon request. | | | |
| | | | | | |
| |For PBIS: |Baseline data to be collected from | | | |
| |Six days training by MDE |implementation sites. | | | |
| |Half time PBIS coach | | | | |
| |Building leadership teams meet once per|Universal screenings in implementation | | | |
| |month |sites. | | | |
| | | | | | |
| |For RtI: |CAMPUS data collection for PBIS. | | | |
| |Develop pyramid of tiered interventions| | | | |
| |Develop and implement a progress |AIMSweb data system for Response to | | | |
| |monitoring system using AIMSweb |Intervention (RtI). | | | |
| |Continue training with Building Problem| | | | |
| |Solving Teams | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
|2007.2008 Future Year Action Plan(s) |
|Goal Statement: |2. Reduce all areas of non-compliance identified in record reviews |
|Desired Outcome |Strategies |What collected data will give evidence of |Progress/Results Analysis |Status |X |
| | |progress? | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
|Goal Statement: |3. Increase graduation rate and decrease dropout rate. |
|Desired Outcome |Strategies |What collected data will give evidence of |Progress/Results Analysis |Status |X |
| | |progress? | | | |
| | | | |Outcome Continue | |
| | | | |Other: explain | |
|13. Data Management Plan Directions |
|District Data Profiles for Early Childhood and K-21 special education programs are published annually and can be found on the MDE website at |
| |
|The year prior to the district’s scheduled MDE Validation Review, Part B and Part C record review findings should be included in the annual report. |
|Prior to the district’s scheduled MDE Validation Review, data must be gathered from all required stakeholder groups listed in the chart below. Districts may choose to collect data from one or more groups during each|
|year of the MNCIMP:SR cycle, or collect data from all groups in one year. |
|Complete the “Year Collected” column after the data has been collected for all categories except those already listed as “Annually”. |
|See the MNCIMP:SR Guidelines and Resources Manual for detailed sampling procedures and additional directions. |
|Data Sources and Targeted Population |Timing of Measurements |Year Collected |
|Part C: Child Find and Natural Environments |Annually |Annually – District results can be found in the |
| | |Early Childhood District Data Profiles |
|Part C and Part B Early Childhood Outcome Data |Ongoing as children enter or exit Part C or Section 619 |Annually – District results can be found in the |
| | |Early Childhood District Data Profiles |
|Part C Family Outcomes Survey |Ongoing as children exit Part C |Annually—District results will be included in the |
| | |Early Childhood District Data Profile |
|Part B (age 3-5): Settings/LRE |Annually |Annually – District results can be found in the |
| | |Early Childhood District Data Profiles |
|Part B (age 6-21): Settings/LRE |Annually |Annually – District results can be found in the |
| | |K-21 District Data Profiles |
|Part C: Timely Evaluations |Annually |Annually—District results can be found in the |
| | |Early Childhood District Data Profile |
|MCA-2 Results (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11) |Annually |Annually – District results can be found in the |
|AYP Status for Special Education Subgroup | |K-21 District Data Profiles |
|Graduation Rates |Annually |Annually – District results can be found in the |
| | |K-21 District Data Profiles |
|Dropout Rates |Annually |Annually – District results can be found in the |
| | |K-21 District Data Profiles |
|Suspension and Expulsion Rates |Annually |Annually – District results can be found in the |
| | |K-21 District Data Profiles |
|Family Stakeholder Information |May be collected anytime in the cycle. |Collect and Report 2007-2008 |
|Part C |Reported on the year prior to MDE Validation |An electronic survey will be developed using the MDE survey as a template. Additional |
| | |district specific questions will be added. Sampling procedures will correlate with |
| | |record review procedures (below) which are sensitive to racial, grade, disability, |
| | |setting and other state required components |
|Family Stakeholder Information | | |
|Part B | | |
|General Education Staff Stakeholder Information |May be collected any time in the cycle. |2007-2008 |
| |Reported on the year prior to MDE Validation. | |
|Special Education Staff Stakeholder Information |May be collected any time in the cycle. |2006-2007 |
|(Part C) |Reported on the year prior to MDE Validation. |2007-2008 |
|Special Education Staff Stakeholder Information |May be collected any time in the cycle. |2007-2008 |
|(Part B) |Reported on the year prior to MDE Validation. | |
|Paraprofessional Stakeholder Information |May be collected any time in the cycle. |2007-2008 |
| |Reported on the year prior to MDE Validation. | |
|Administrator Stakeholder Information |May be collected any time in the cycle. |2007-2008 |
|(Optional) |Reported on the year prior to MDE Validation. | |
|Other: |May be collected any time in the cycle. |Annually |
|Referral/RTI data |Reported on the year prior to MDE Validation. | |
| | | |
|Part B: Record Reviews |Conducted and reported on the year prior to MDE Validation |Based on our special education student population of 1698 students., 91 Part B & C |
|Ages 3 to 21 Special Education Student | |records will be reviewed by Spring 2008. Will align review with disproportionality |
| | |study using a weighted risk ratio. Based on a confidence level of 95% and a |
| | |confidence interval of +/-10, the following sample of files will be pulled: |
| | |63 Caucasian |
| | |13 African American |
| | |8 Asian |
| | |2 American Indian |
| | |5 Hispanic |
| | |Other—Therapeutic Elementary Education Program, Next Step Transition Program, Non |
| | |Public review, ELL population. |
| | | |
| | |Unannounced follow-up visits will be conducted to multiple school sites, verifying |
| | |that students receive services as stated on their IEPs. |
|Part C: Record Reviews |Conducted and reported on the year prior to MDE Validation |Based on our Part C, special education population of 57 students, 20 records will be |
|Birth to age 3 Early Childhood Infants and Toddlers | |reviewed in the Spring 2008. |
|Longitudinal Record Reviews |Conducted and reported on the year prior to MDE Validation |Review of 6-10 part B files for students in Fed Settings III and IV, closely analyzing|
|(Optional) | |utilization of district procedures for placement in these settings. |
-----------------------
crg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
cg
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.