April 2010 Copyright © 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Mattie T. Updated Timeline and...

April 2010 Copyright © 2010 Mississippi Department of Education

Mattie T. Updated Timeline and Goals


Mattie T. Timeline

• Class Action originally filed April 25, 1975• Original Consent Decree signed on January

26, 1979• Motion filed to end consent decree in

November 2001• This motion was later withdrawn by

agreement of the parties and in exchange for entry of the 2003 Modified Consent Decree


Mattie T. Timeline

• December 23, 2003 - revised Consent Decree signed by United States District Court Judge Mills

– Set specific numeric targets for state and districts to meet

– Addresses children 6 to 20 years old– Includes SLD, OHI, EmD, EMR, and LRE– All provisions relating to LRE dismissed with

prejudice May 2009

0.08%

0.30%

0.41%

0.12%

0.55%

0.49%

0.27%

0.37%0.35%

0.32%0.31%0.27%

0.18%

0.23%

0.40%

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

0.40%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

0.80%

0.90%

1.00%

1999-2000

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Percent

Baseline

EMD AnnualTargets

Actual

EmD: Mississippi will increase the percentage of students with Emotional Disturbance to be at 0.55%.

TARGET NOT MET

0.04%0.14% 0.19%

1.17% 1.20%

0%

0.08%

0.24% 0.30%

1.09%0.96%

0.67%

0.81%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

1999-2000

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Percent

Baseline

OHIAnnualTargets

Actual

OHI: Mississippi will increase the percentage of students with Other Health Impairments to be at 0.30%.

TARGET MET

0.560.590.650.730.79

0.57

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

1999-2000

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Differential

EMR Annual Target: 1.15

Actual

EMR: Mississippi will ensure that districts have a differential of 1.15 or less in the proportion of Black students from the proportion of other race students identified with educable mental retardation.

0

25

34

27

23

18

12

6

31

25

21

1716

0 0

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

EMR 1999-2000

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

EMR Annual Target

Actual

Baseline

EMR: The Consent Decree requires every LEA to reduce its EMR Differential to 1.15 or less.TARGET NOT MET

1.98

1.28

1.66

2.402.24

1.95

2.472.56

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

1999-2000

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

DifferentialSLD Annual Target: 1.85

Actual

SLD: Mississippi will ensure that districts must have a differential of 1.85 or less in the proportion of Black students from the proportion of other race students identified as specific learning disabilities.

SLD - Number of Districts Out of Compliance

00

92

80

68

50

30

00

52

99 101105

67

85

100

108105

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SLD 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

SLD Annual Target

Actual

Baselines

SLD: The Consent Decree requires every LEA to reduce its SLD Differential to 1.85 or less.

TARGET NOT MET


Mattie T. Timeline

• MDE and Mattie T. Consultants will review special education data for each district that includes:

– Monitoring reports– Follow-up visits– Analysis of reports – Due Process

• Originally: Sept 2008 - Sept 2010• Changed to: Dec 2008 - Dec 2010


Mattie T. Timeline

• Analyzing and verifying accuracy of data

• Originally: Sept 2010 - March 2011 • Changed to: Dec 2010 - June 2011


Mattie T. Timeline

• Final Data Reference Point for determining whether or not the termination criteria have been met

• Originally: September 2010 • Changed to: December 1, 2010


Mattie T. Timeline

• Districts must be notified in writing of non-compliance

• Originally: April 15, 2011

• Changed to: July 15, 2011


Mattie T. Timeline

• “Plan of Rapid Compliance” must be submitted to MDE

–must outline goal of meeting the targets –if LEA fails to submit plan, mandatory and

automatic sanctions shall be imposed

• Originally: June 15, 2011• Changed to: September 15, 2011


Mattie T. Timeline

• ALL districts must be in compliance

– Any LEA that is not in compliance with the decree’s requirements, shall have mandatory and automatic sanctions imposed

• Originally: December 31, 2011

• Changed to: March 31, 2012


Mattie T. Timeline

• A Hearing before the U.S. District Court may be required if the Consent Decree’s goals are not met.

• MDE must present a plan with additional steps to meet the goals.

• The Court may recommend changes to this plan.


Disproportionality Strategies

• Three Strategies Utilize the three-tier intervention model to prevent over-

identification. Revisit recently identified students for declassification. Consider that another classification might be more

appropriate.Note: All three strategies require data from multiple sources and

appropriate documentation. The latter two methods require appropriate review and consideration by the IEP Committee of progress on IEP goals and consideration of the impact of the decision on the student’s educational and personal future and must be done carefully using the guidance of experts in assessment and evaluation of children.


Effective Teacher Support Teams

1. The student’s current level(s) of performance/baseline in the area(s) of concern are described in measurable terms meaningful for intervention.

2. Observable replacement behaviors and the desired level of performance/goal for the student are described in measurable terms.

3. A method for measuring progress towards the desired level of performance/goal is described in writing.

4. An intervention to improve student performance is designed in the form of an Intervention Plan.

5. At least one person is assigned to support the teacher in implementing the Intervention Plan.


Effective Teacher Support Teams

6. The frequency (how often) the measure of progress will be used is specified in writing.

7. An implementation integrity measure is available for checking (self-checking) how the intervention is implemented.

8. The principal is present and participates in the meeting.

9. The parent(s) of the student is aware of and has the opportunity to be involved in the TST process.

10. A date for the review of the Intervention Plan and progress monitoring data is specified in writing


Declassification

• Through an appropriate reevaluation, consider the declassification of students who are eligible as students with a Specific Learning Disability.

• The reevaluation for these students involves those students who are doing well academically with or without supports to enable their success.

• IEP Committees should consider a student’s ability to be successful in general education with the necessary academic and behavioral supports provided through the three-tiered instructional model.


Reclassification

• Through an appropriate reevaluation, consider the reclassification of students who are eligible as students with a Specific Learning Disability.

• IEP Committees should look at possible areas of eligibility such as: Emotional Disability, Other Health Impaired,

Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, or any other category where eligibility criteria is evident.


Under-identification of Emotional Disabilities

• Make data-based decisions for students who exhibit emotional and behavioral problems. Data sources include, but are not limited to: Office Discipline Referrals Suspensions/Expulsions Retentions Absences, leaving school early or attending partial

days Changes in schools


The State (and district) must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that – (i) All children with disabilities residing in the State, including children who are homeless children or wards of the state and children with disabilities attending private schools regardless of the severity of their disability and who are in need of special education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated.

Child Find 300.111(a)(i)(ii)


Findings of Noncompliance

Child Find: Failure to refer students with multiple

discipline problems to TST or MET; No documentation of behavior interventions

for students with multiple discipline problems or severe discipline concerns;

Students with pronounced behavior problems remained in TST and were never referred for a comprehensive assessment.



Assessment & Evaluation 300.304 (c)(6)

The evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability.



• Assessment & Evaluation: Behavior is not addressed during re-

evaluation, when evidence of multiple suspensions or repeated discipline referrals exist.

Eligibility determination of SLD for a student with discipline referrals in excess of 20 during one school year and placements at the Alternative School.



300.309(a)(3)(i)

The district team determines that its findings are not primarily the result of a visual, hearing or motor disability.



• Documentation in files of students with SLD eligibility - student files include evidence or documentation of: Hearing difficulties Visual problems/concerns Physical problems Emotional or behavioral difficulties


State Director, Office of Special Education601-359-3498

[email protected]

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/special_education/

Ann Moore

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/special_education/

April 2010 Copyright © 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Mattie T. Updated Timeline and...

Documents

Transcript of April 2010 Copyright © 2010 Mississippi Department of Education Mattie T. Updated Timeline and...