Parent Involvement and IDEA 2004

1
Parent Involvement and IDEA 2004

• Washington State Performance Plan
• Performance Indicator B8

2
What is parent involvement?
3
NCLB 2001, Title I Definition of Parent
Involvement

• The statute defines parental involvement as the
  participation of parents in regular, two-way, and
  meaningful communication involving student
  academic learning and other school activities.

4
IDEA 2004 Support for parent training and
information activities is intended to

• Create and preserve constructive relationships
  between parents and schools
• Ensure parent involvement in planning and
  decision making
• Assist parents to develop skills they need to
  participate effectively in the education and
  development of their children
• Support parents as participants within
  partnerships
• Help overcome economic, cultural, and linguistic
  barriers to full parent participation

5
Parent Involvement and State Accountability

• Under IDEA 2004, State Educational Agencies are
  responsible for reporting to OSEP (the U.S.
  Department of Educations Office of Special
  Education Programs) on parent involvement.

6
Ongoing accountability

• Performance Indicators
• Washington State Performance Plan
• Annual Performance Report
• Focused Monitoring

7
Performance Indicators

• Part B programs (3-21) must report on 20
  performance indicators.
• The indicators focus not only on procedural
  compliance but on results.

8
State Performance Plan

• 6-year plan describing
• How the State will collect data addressing each
  performance indicator
• Baseline data-how the state was doing at the
  beginning of the plan period
• Targets-where the State wants to be in 6 years
• Improvement strategies-activities designed to
  meet or exceed targets

9
Annual Performance Report

• Must be submitted to OSEP by February 1st
• Results must be reported publicly
• Results must be reported
• For the State as a whole
• For each school district in the State

10
Focused Monitoring

• A process that purposefully selects priority
  areas to examine for compliance and results,
  while not specifically examining other areas for
  compliance, to
• Maximize resources
• Emphasize important variables, and
• Increase the probability of improved results

11
Focused Monitoring Framework
12
Example of Part B Compliance Indicator (B12)

• Percent of children referred by Part C (Infant
  Toddler Early Intervention Program) prior to age
  three (3), who are found eligible for Part B, and
  who have an IEP developed and implemented by
  their third birthdays.

13
Example of Part B Results Indicator (B1)

• Percent of youth with individualized education
  programs (IEPs) graduating from high school with
  a regular diploma compared to percent of all
  youth in the State graduating with a regular
  diploma.

14
What it comes down to is

• What gets counted, counts!

15
Part B Indicator 8

• Percent of parents with a child receiving special
  education services who report that schools
  facilitated parent involvement as a means of
  improving service and results for children with
  disabilities.

16
Independent evaluator

• On behalf of the Washington State Office of the
  Superintendent of Public Instruction, Avatar
  International, Inc. disseminates parent surveys
  to all parents of special education students
  currently enrolled in districts that participated
  in program review activities during the school
  year.

17
NCSEAM Parent Survey

• A reliable tool, developed by the National Center
  for Special Education Accountability Monitoring
• The results of the survey are being used as part
  of the States federal accountability and are
  included in the Annual Performance Report

18
What is being measured?

• The School Age Survey looks at the Schools
  Efforts to Partner with Parents
• The Preschool Survey looks at the Preschools
  Partnership Efforts and Quality of Services

19
Part B School Partnership Efforts

• S offers parents training about special education
  issues
• S gives parents help to play an active role in
  child's education
• I was given information about organizations that
  offer information and training for parents
• I have been asked for my opinion about services
• The school provides information on agencies for
  transition
• S gives me choices with regard to services
• S communicates regularly with me regarding my
  child's progress
• Teachers and administrators seek out parent input
• TA ensure that I have fully understood the
  Procedural Safeguards
• I am considered an equal partner with teachers
  and professionals
• All of my concerns and recommendations were
  documented on the IEP
• TA show sensitivity to the needs of students
  with disabilities
• S offers parents different ways to communicate
  with teachers
• We discussed accommodations and modifications for
  my child
• T treat me as a team member
• TA respect my culture and language
• Written information I receive is written in an
  understandable way
• T are available to speak with me
• Information is provided to me in a language I
  understand

20
Measurement Parameters

• Item Calibrations
• Survey data are analyzed through a measurement
  program
• The results indicate the relative position of
  each item on the NCSEAM measurement ruler
• An items position on the measurement ruler is
  the items calibration
• For example
• Each parents answers to the survey questions are
  measured on the NCSEAM scale-think of the scale
  as a ruler and each parent gives a score from 200
  to 800 (how the parents rate their schools
  partnership efforts)

21
Measurement Parameters (continued)

• Obtaining State-level Measure
• Survey data are analyzed through the measurement
  program
• The results show the relative position of each
  respondent (parent) on the measurement ruler
• The mean (average) of all the individual measures
  constitutes the States measure on the
  performance indicator B8

22
Calculation of the States percent on the
performance indicator

• An analogy
• Same logic as percent of fourth graders reading
  at grade level.
• The reading test on which this determination is
  based yields a range of scores.
• A decision is made as to what score is needed in
  order to say that a student is reading at the
  fourth grade level.
• We report the percentage of students who score at
  or above the criterion score.

23
Calculation of the States percent on the
performance indicator cont.

• The distribution of measures of all parents who
  responded to the survey were examined.
• The standard that the State adopted is
  applied-600
• The percent the State reports to OSEP is the
  percent of parents with measures at or above the
  standard (600)

24
Criterion item (the standard) for Part B

• The school explains what options parents have if
  they disagree with a decision of the school.

25
ITEM CALIBRATIONS ON THE PART B SCHOOL EFFORTS
RULER
800 .
.
. .
. .
. . 700
. .
. . .
. .
. .
. 600 .
. .
. .
. . .
. .
500 . .
. .
. .
. .
. . 400
. .
. .
. . .
.
. 300 .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
200 .

• The school explains what options parents have
  if they disagree with a decision of the school.
  600

Slide from NCSEAM Presentation September 2006
26
State Performance Plan Targets
27
Washington Parent Survey Results

• Measurement Formula for Indicator B8
• Percent (of respondent parents who report
  schools facilitated parent involvement as a means
  of improving services and results for children
  with disabilities) divided by the (total of
  respondent parents of children with
  disabilities) times 100

28
Parent Survey Results (continued)

• Applied
• FFY 2005 (619) divided by (2,578) times 100
  24 (weighted mean percentage of Washington
  parents with measures at or above the standard
  cutoff)
• FFY 2006 (397) divided by (1,654) times 100
  24 (weighted mean percentage of Washington
  parents with measures at or above the standard
  cutoff)

29
For Federal Fiscal Year 2005
30
For Federal Fiscal Year 2006
31
Comparison of Results to TargetParent Survey for
FFY 2006
32
Target Setting/Adjustments

• The NCSEAM Improvement Calculator is a computer
  application that was developed as a tool for
  states to use in conjunction with the NCSEAM
  Parent Survey, to set and adjust targets for
  improvement.
• The use of the NCSEAM Improvement Calculator
  helps ensure that targets are set that represent
  real improvement, not just random variation owing
  to sampling and measurement error.
• Change in percentage representing real change
  1.87 for Washington State

33
Sample Using Java Runtime Environment Improvement
Calculator
34
Improvement Initiatives FFY 2007

• Acquire Translated Parent Surveys-Research and
  adopt translated parent surveys in Spanish,
  Cambodian, Korean, Russian, and Vietnamese.
• Enhancing Family/Educator Partnerships(WEA)
• There are two primary project goals, one of
  which is to develop and implement a plan to
  systemically address the needs of underserved
  populations including families that are
  culturally, linguistically, economically and
  geographically diverse.

35
Improvement Initiatives FFY 2007 (continued)

• Washington Sensory Disabilities Services
• This project will
• a. assist local education communities and
  families develop quality education programs for
  all children and youth with sensory disabilities
  through shared expertise, trainings, and
  partnerships and
• b. specifically increase family members
  ability to understand the impact of vision
  impairment and participate in the planning,
  development, and implementation of their childs
  intervention and
  instruction.

36
Resources

• The NCSEAM Parent/Family Survey Interpreting
  Results and Setting Meaningful Performance
  Targets. B. Elbaum, W. Fisher, A. Coulter.
  National Accountability Conference. September
  2006
• Parent Involvement Whos Accountable? Who
  Benefits? Batya Elbaum, Ph.D. University of
  Miami. June 2006
• National Center for Special Education
  Accountability Monitoring www.monitoringcenter.lsu
  hsc.edu
• Michigan State Department of Education Parent
  Involvement