Louisiana State Louisiana State Improvement GrantImprovement Grant

Project Directors Project Directors Meeting 2006Meeting 2006

Evelyn Johnson, LDE Evelyn Johnson, LDE evelyn.johnson@la.govevelyn.johnson@la.gov

Margaret Lang, LSUMargaret Lang, LSUmlang@lsu.edumlang@lsu.edu

Melanie Lemoine, UNO Melanie Lemoine, UNO mforstal@uno.edumforstal@uno.edu

Bill Sharpton, UNO Bill Sharpton, UNO wsharpto@uno.eduwsharpto@uno.edu

Kay Marcel, Family Coordinator Kay Marcel, Family Coordinator kamarcel@bellsouth.netkamarcel@bellsouth.net

Louisiana State Louisiana State Improvement Grant Improvement Grant

• To increase the number and quality of general and special education teachers, related service personnel, administrators and other staff. (Professional Development)

• To increase the access to, and participation of, children and youth with disabilities and their families in appropriate and effective special education services and supports.

• To increase and improve the learning results of children and youth with disabilities.

3

WestFeliciana

Washington

St. Tammany

Tangipahoa

St.Helena

Livingston (6)

CoupeePt.

East

Avoyelles

EBR (2)W.

IbervilleOrleans (16)

St. John St. Charles

St. Charles (8)

St. Bernard

Plaquemines (9)Jefferson (8)

AscensionSt.

JamessAssumption

LafourcheSt.Mary

Terrebonne

BeauregardAllen

Calcasieu

Cameron

JeffersonDavis

Evangeline

St. Landry

Acadia

Vermilion(6)

Lafayette

St.Martin

Iberia

Vernon Rapides (3)

Winn

Grant

LaSalleCatahoula (5)

Concordia

Caldwell

Natchitoches

Caddo

Bossier

RedRiverDeSoto

(6)

Sabine

Webster

Bienville

Claiborne

Lincoln

Jackson

Union Morehouse

OuachitaRichland

FranklinTensas

Madison

CarrollWest East (3)

Carroll

City ofBogalusa

City ofMonroe

LaSIG Districts 2005-06

Participating SchoolsParticipating Schools

Participating DistrictsParticipating Districts 11

54

Assumption (4)

Coordinated Reform EffortsCoordinated Reform Efforts

School

District

State

Individual

Key IssuesKey Issues• District and School Improvement• Research Based Practices• Family Partnership• Professional Development• Teacher Preparation• Evaluation

District and School District and School ImprovementImprovement

Beginning of ProjectBeginning of Project• New mandate required school

improvement teams• In place “on paper” only• Lack of stakeholder representation• Lack of data to make decisions• “buck shot approach”

District and School District and School ImprovementImprovement

AccomplishmentsAccomplishments

• SIT and DIT teams functioning in all LaSIG sites

• Key focus was on campus improvement

• Coaching provided to adopt data based decision making

• Several campuses demonstrated gains in LRE, student performance, school improvement

Percent of Students with Disabilities ages 6-21 by Educational Environment

37%34%

43%

49%

64%

19%

31%

19%

43%

40%

26%

22%

16%

45%47%

50%52%

25%26%

28%

23%26% 26%

29%27%

22%20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05

Outside Regular Class < 21% of Day(Regular Ed.)

Outside Regular Class 21-60% of Day(Resource)

Outside Regular Class > 60% of Day (Self-Contained)

LaSIG Schools State of Louisiana

Outperforming Districts Outperforming Districts (Standard & Poors)(Standard & Poors)

• Outperform demographically similar peers (economically disadvantaged)– Achieve higher levels of proficiency rates– Must outperform at levels that

significantly exceed statistical expectation

– Must outperform consistently – for at least 2 consecutive years (2003-04 & 2004-05)

Congratulations!!!Congratulations!!!

•Catahoula

•East Carroll

•Plaquemines

AYP for students with AYP for students with Disabilities 2004-05Disabilities 2004-05

54 of 57 (95%) LaSIG schools met AYP!

State – 74.6%LaSIG districts – 58%

Family – Beginning of Family – Beginning of ProjectProject

• School improvement teams did not include family members

• Family resource centers focused more on individual advocacy than relationship building with schools/districts

• Family members did not know about school improvement

• Family members were not engaged in delivery of PD

Family AccomplishmentsFamily Accomplishments• Family leadership academies implemented• Over 300 family graduates available to

assume leadership roles in professional development and school improvement

• All school improvement teams include at least one family member

• Partnership developed between schools and family resource centers (PD opportunities)

Research-Based PracticesResearch-Based PracticesBeginning of ProjectBeginning of Project

• State developed tools to assist districts/campuses in identifying research based practices to implement

• No PD provided to practitioners to use the tools

Research Based PracticesResearch Based PracticesAccomplishmentsAccomplishments

• PD provided to site personnel on data-based decision making and selection of strategies to meet needs

• PD provided on targeted research based practices

• Job embedded PD model designed to assist practitioners in developing effective strategies (governance, SWPBS)

• Practices linked to SPP

Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentBeginning of ProjectBeginning of Project

• At the state level, multiple separate initiatives

• SIM• PBS• General Education initiatives• At the district level, incoherent and

non-targeted PD• Primarily a workshop model

Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentAccomplishmentsAccomplishments

• SWPBS now stewarded by general and special education jointly

• SIM now a joint effort between general and special education

• Both strategies included in SPP and revised school improvement “tools and templates”

Teacher PreparationTeacher PreparationBeginningBeginning

• State promulgated redesign mandate for all teacher education programs

• General and special education given separate timelines

Teacher PreparationTeacher PreparationAccomplishmentsAccomplishments

• Guidelines for “blended” general education and special education – mild moderate disabilities developed with project support

EvaluationEvaluationBeginning of ProjectBeginning of Project

• Project collected and summarized data

• “Monitoring” relationship• Data tools developed and used by

project staff

EvaluationEvaluationAccomplishmentsAccomplishments

• Sites utilized tools to collect and summarize data

• Technical assistance to use collected data to design and implement school improvement plans

District and School District and School Improvement Next StepsImprovement Next Steps

• Shift emphasis to district improvement

• Identify requirements to participate in capacity building activities

• Align districts with professional development initiatives

Develop 5 Year PlanDevelop 5 Year Plan

• District team of stakeholders• Present data re: needs• Identify areas needing change (systems

change framework)• Identify data that team will regularly analyze

to assess change• Identify scientific/evidence based instructional

& behavioral practices to be implemented

5 Year Plan - Non-5 Year Plan - Non-NegotiablesNegotiables

District and school improvement teams with regular analysis of pertinent data

Authentic participation of family/community stakeholders

Create culturally responsive educational and instructional environments to address issues of disproportionality and achievement gaps

Non-Negotiables cont.Non-Negotiables cont.Embed and integrate Universal

Design for Learning (UDL) strategies

Response to Intervention (RtI) – use of student progress monitoring and interventions for struggling learners

Job-embedded, sustained, professional development and regular evaluation of data to determine impact

Family – Next StepsFamily – Next Steps• Assist regional family centers in

developing database to organize intake, outreach, and outcome data

• Shift operation of leadership academies to districts

• All district/school improvement plans include family partnership goal

• Partner with People First of Louisiana to create leadership roles for consumers

Research Based PracticesResearch Based PracticesNext StepsNext Steps

• Additional focus on supporting strategist groups

• PD to be provided on additional research based practices

• Practitioners supported to document impact of using research based practices

Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentNext StepsNext Steps

• SPDG will convene all PD initiatives for annual planning and quarterly collaboration meetings

• Low incidence RFP issued to develop statewide consortium

• Accessibility task force

LA Dept. of Education (LDE)

Low Incidence Consortium

Professional Development Schools/Classrooms

Positive Behavior Support

SPDG Campus and District PD/Continuous Improvement Activities

Response to Intervention (RtI)

Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)

Family Leadership Training – FHF/PTI & SPDGLDE Family Personnel

Accessibility Task Force

Reg’l Assis. Tech. Centers

Disproportionality/Culturally Responsive Education Systems

LA Literacy Plan

Autism Initiative – LSU HSC

People First of LA – LA ARC

Transition/Secondary (High School Redesign)

Early Childhood DHH/Off.of Public Health Part C Lead/Early Steps & LDE Preschool

Regional Education Service Centers (RESCs)

Off. For Citizens w/Developmental Dis.Education Work Group

Signficant Dis. Leadership Group

Teacher PreparationTeacher PreparationNext StepsNext Steps

• Technical assistance for universities to redesign and implement blended programs

• Development of positive practice sites to support inclusive internships/student teaching

• Development of technology infrastructure to support statewide preparation/PD

EvaluationEvaluationNext StepsNext Steps

• Identify additional data to assist school improvement efforts

• Revise state data system to include additional data elements

• Transfer of tools developed by project to state department