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: [email protected] . 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.

final

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: http://education.state.mn.us/mde/Accountability_Programs/Compliance_and_Assistance/Special_Education_Monitoring/MNCIMP__ SR/index.html  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 [email protected] . All reports must be PC Microsoft Word compatible.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 1

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 14715512% Indian1% Percentage of Total Part B Percentage of Total Early Childhood IndianTotal Total Special Education Enrollment Part B (K-21) Special Education Enrollment 7% Asian Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity (K-21) Special Education Minority (Part C and Pre-K) 14% Black (General Education plus Special Enrollment 5% Hispanic by Race/Ethnicity Education) 72% White 11% Asian 9% Black 5% Hispanic 73% White Student Enrollment (General Education plus Special Education) 11,575 3,132 (non-public) 14,707 Total

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 & MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 2

2. District General Information and Significant Trends or Changes 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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 3

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

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 4

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 reviewcrg 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 1. All students can learn and are entitled to a quality education. offer services that 2. The education of students is a partnership among special services, general education staff, interagency staff, parents, the students and the respectfully provide the community. support needed to 3. Students and staff deserve physical and emotional safety. maximize the learner’s 4. Students will make academic progress when specialized and individualized instruction is provided and curriculum is appropriate and potential for meaningful to meet the unique needs of each student. independence, self- advocacy and a healthy and productive life style.Belief Statements: XHave you changed the YES mission and belief statements from your previous report? If yes, provide rationale for the change.NO

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 5

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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 6

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) http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Learning_Support/Special_Education/Statewide_Performance/State_Local_Outcome_Data/index.html

Grade Skill Assessed Analysis Degree of Level (check) Need (enter rate) (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 Medium ____ report. 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 Medium ____ report. 10 ____ Low ____

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 7

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 SPP/APR 2005-2006 Analysis Degree of Categories Indicator State Data Need (check one) Graduation Rates Part B State Rate = District Rate ___75%______High __X__ 1 82.43% At or above state rate? Yes ____ No __X_ At or above state target? Yes ____ No _X__ Medium ____ State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. = 81.95% Low ____ (Special This is a significant change from the previous school year so we question accuracy. In 2006 our Education Rate) 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 = District Rate ____6.9%______High __X__ 2 4.89% At or below state rate? Yes ____ No __X__ At or below state target? Yes____ No _X__ Medium ____ State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. = 4.55% Low ____ (Special The drop-out rate for ISD 622 special education students was 4.89% last year so again the 6.9% Education Rate) 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 Part B State Rate = District Rate ____.2%______High ____ Expulsion Rates 4 1.25% At or below state rate? Yes __X__ No _X___ >10 days At or below state target? Yes__X__ No ____ Medium ____ State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. = 1.8% Low ___X_ (Special Education Rate)

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 8

cg 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 http://education.state.mn.us/mde/Learning_Support/Special_Education/Statewide_Performance/State_Local_Outcome_Data/index.html  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 SPP/APR 2005-2006 Program Evaluation Analysis Degree of Category Indicator State Data Need (check one) Part C: Part C State Rate = . Administrative Unit Rate ____1.55%______High ____ Child Find 5 46% At or above state rate? Yes __x__ No ___ Birth-1 At or above state target? Yes __x__ No ___ Medium ____ State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. = .45% Low __X__ Part C: Part C State Rate = Administrative Unit Rate ______2.19%______High ____ Child Find 6 1.57% At or above state rate? Yes _x___ No ___ Birth-2 At or above state target? Yes __x__ No ___ Medium ____ State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. = 1.56% Low __X__

Part C: Part C State Rate = Administrative Unit Rate ______91.1%______High ____ Natural 2 90.3% At or above state rate? Yes __x__ No ___ Environment At or above state target? Yes __x__ No ___ Medium ____ (ages 0-3) State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. = 89.5% Low __X__

Part B: Part B State Rate = Administrative Unit Rate ___37.7%___ High __X__ Pre-School Settings 6 50.5% At or below state rate? Yes __X__ No ___ LRE (age 3-5) At or below state target? Yes __X__ No ___ Medium ___ environments with State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. typically developing = 58% Low ____ peers (including While we have increased our inclusion rates from 31.4% to 37.7%, we continue to search for settings 1, 3, & 4) 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. cg cg MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 9 cg cg

cg Reporting SPP/APR 2005-2006 Program Evaluation Analysis Degree of Need Category Indicator State Data (check one) # Part B: Part B State Rate= District Rate 49.5% High __X__ Settings/LRE 5A 60.40% At or above state rate? Yes ___ No __X__ School Age (6-21) State Target At or above state target? Ye s___ No __X__ Medium ____ Rate = 61% If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. Removed from class Low ____ less than 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= District Rate 10.3% High __X__ Settings/LRE 5C 4.74% At or below state rate? Yes ____ No __X__ School Age (6-21) At or below state target? Yes____ No __X__ Medium ____ State Target If below either state target or rate, provide an analysis. Served in separate Rate = 5.4% Low ____ schools, residential The district did not meet the state or target rate for students served in a Federal Setting IV placements, or 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 cg 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 MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 10

Reporting SPP/APR 2005-2006 Program Evaluation Analysis Degree of Need Category Indicator State Data (check one) #

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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 11

Program Evaluation Directions: Early Childhood Outcome Data

 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 http://education.state.mn.us/mde/Learning_Support/Special_Education/Statewide_Performance/State_Local_Outcome_Data/index.html  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 SPP/APR 2005-2006 Program Evaluation Analysis Degree of Category Indicator State Data Need (check one) Parts B and C: Part B # State Targets = A. IFSP documentation of transition planning – High ____ Transition A. 100% Administrative Unit Rate____100%______Part C compliance At state target of 100%? Yes __x__ No _____ Medium ___ A. Documentation of 8 B. 100% If not at the state target, provide an analysis. transition planning compliance Low __X__ on IFSP B. Transition B. Transition conferences occurred – conferences occurred Administrative Unit Rate_____0%_reported by MDE, but actually 100%______during regulatory At state target of 100%? Yes __x__ No _____ timeframe 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% At state target of 100%? Yes ____ No __x____ compliance If not at the state target, provide an analysis. Medium ___

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 12

Program Evaluation Directions: Early Childhood Outcome Data

45-day timeline The district exceeds the state, regional and strata rates yet is not at the target of 100% Low __X__ compliance. An analysis of the IFSPs over the 45 day timeline indicated that there was an error

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 13

Program Evaluation Directions: Early Childhood Outcome Data

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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 14

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 15

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: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm .  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.)

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 16

Stakeholders Stakeholder Data School Degree of Findings Year(s) Data Need Collected (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 2004-2005 Low __X__ group in an effort to 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 2005-2006 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 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 Degree of Findings Year(s) Data Need Collected (check one) Family Part B SPP/APR Indicator #8 2003-2004 High ____ Part B # surveys distributed = 330 distributed (EBD/DCD) # surveys returned =38 returned; 12% return rate Medium ____ 2004-2005 # surveys distributed = 197 distributed (SLD) Low __X__ # surveys returned = 52 returned; 26% return rate

General Educator Staff # surveys distributed = 142 distributed 2003-2004 High ____ # surveys returned = 75 returned; 53% return rate (EBD/DCD) Medium ____ # surveys distributed = 119 distributed 2004-2005 # surveys returned =44 returned; 37% return rate (SLD) Low __X__

Paraprofessional During the 2005-2006 school year, the Director of Special Education met with approximately 15 2005-2006 High ____ paraprofessionals to discuss their concerns and training needs. Some highlights of the discussion were are follows: Medium _X__ -need to see IEP’s or at least have input from the teacher about the student(s) -their performance evaluation is often way too little and too late Low ____ MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 17

-would like Wayne Urbaniak back to meet with paras and their cooperating special education teacher -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 2004-2005 Medium __X__ about the IEIC service coordination model. At the time of submission of the CIMP report, those findings (Part C) were still being reviewed by the IEIC and were not 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 2005-2006 providers from the Early Intervention Alliance (EIA). All had experience working with ISD 622 families for (Part C) several years.

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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 18

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 Medium ____ # surveys returned = 83 returned; 45% return rate (EBD/DCD) Low __X__ # surveys distributed = 45 distributed 2004-2005 # surveys returned = 18 returned; 40% return rate (SLD)

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 19

Administrator High ____ (Optional) # surveys distributed = 37 distributed 2003-2004 # surveys returned = 28 returned; 76% return rate (EBD/DCD) Medium ____

Low __X__

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 20

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: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm.

 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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 21

TSES Reference TSES Compliance Part Part Record Review Data Compliance Number Area B C Status NOTE: Based on our 2005-2006 record review MDE Non-compliance data, the district needs to complete its training cycle on the following IEP Program Planning components: 4.1.3 IEP Team Members, 4.3.2. Goals & Objectives, 4.3.3 LRE 4.3.5, IEP in effect, 4.2.11 State Assessments, and 4.12.4 Parental Consent. This data was reported in our 2006 CIMP: SR Report. The action plan for areas are addressed in our 2007-2008 action plan in this current report.

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 Longitudinal Review (optional) Degree of Need Categories Analysis (check one) Internal Consistency High ____ Medium ____ Low ____

Conferred Benefit High ____ Medium ____ Low ____

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 22

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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 23

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 Complete this section for next year’s report. from the prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data Progress/Results Analysis Status X will give evidence of progress? service models are developed, reflected no calculable improvement between evaluated and implemented. students attending a federal setting III program out of Analysis of special their neighborhood attendance area vs. those Analyze each school’s education population attending their neighborhood school. neighborhood distribution of census based on students’ primary disabilities. recommendations. Together with the results of the district’s guided study conducted during the 2005-2006 school year, findings were used to create various scenarios for Recommendations to be serving more students in their neighborhood schools. shared with SEAC and The main objective was to broaden the scope of Principals to determine their students served by special education teams in their support for changes at the own buildings. A model that focuses upon student various levels. needs and abilities rather than specific disabilities, is being adopted in elementary and middle schools. Develop pilots or Additionally, student resiliency factors are being implementation plans if all emphasized rather than a deficit model of special stakeholders are in agreement education. with recommendations. A three-year attrition model was developed for the middle schools to ensure that more mildly disabled students attend their neighborhood schools. Programs that serve students 50% or more of their day are being called Functional Academic Needs All special education staff who Memo will be distributed to Increase of special Number of teachers who are highly qualified has Outcome Met X teach core subjects will be highly all staff not yet HQ education teachers who increased from 50 in 2005-06 to 74 in 2006-07. Outcome qualified in the core subjects they Coordinators will make are HQ from the Continue teach. personal contacts with staff in previous year. Other: explain their buildings who have not yet completed the HOUSSE process.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 24

MAP scores continue to fall below target growth projections. However, there are individual programs at various buildings where students are meeting or exceeding their targets.

MCA writing scores for ISD 622 9th grade students with disabilities, exceeded state levels.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 25

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 Complete this section for next year’s report. from the prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data Progress/Results Analysis Status X will give evidence of progress? Increase the accurate When an ESL teacher 2005-2006 Race data as A total of 714 special education evaluations were Outcome Met identification of minority recommends an assessment reported by the MDE. conducted for the school year 2006-2007. Of these, populations in special education. for a student of Asian descent, 262 or 37% were initial assessments. The majority of at least a screening for 2006-2007 referral data them were administered to students of Caucasian Outcome disabilities will occur. collected by district descent (58%). This was followed by a rate of 23% Continue X pupil needs committees for Black students and 12% for those of Asian Study disaggregated data and disaggregated by descent. Other: explain relative to district-initiated features including race assessments on Black students and gender. to determine level of Upon a review of records for the 2007 misrepresentation in special 2006-2007 data for disproportional representation study required by education. students moving into the MDE, it was discovered that 44% of Black students district with an IEP were identified in another district. 113 (44%) Black already in place. students of the 257 in special education this year moved into ISD 622 with an IEP in place.

While the district is making progress in the appropriateness of its referrals of students for special education evaluations, Black students continue to be slightly over-represented as evidenced by an analysis using the weighted risk ratio (WRR). A closer examination of the factors involved in this finding revealed that close to half of those students moved here from other districts. A full analysis is found in the addendum to the 2007 CIMP report as required by MDE.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 26

Increase the percentage of Distribute the federal settings 2005-2006 Part B Federal Setting I- Data reports that the district served Outcome Met students who are served in a wording to staff during Setting Data as reported 1.3% more students in a Setting I environment. Setting I environment (removed opening workshop and by the MDE. Although we did not reach our 5% target, trend data Outcome from class less than 21% of day) reinforce with verbal suggests a gradual trend of serving more students in Continue X by 5%. explanation a Setting I placement. Other: explain Decrease the percentage of Coordinators to do random Federal Setting III- Data reports an increase of 2.7% students who are served in a check on at least one file of of students placed in a Setting III environment. Setting III environment (removed each case manager of IEP’s to Federal Setting IV- Data reports an increase of 5.2% from class greater than 60% of the assure accuracy. Also, a of students placed in a Setting IV environment. day) by 1%. system to check a few of Although data suggests that the district continues to those IEP’s of students in out place more students in Setting III & IV settings, our Decrease the percentage of placed settings data will not reflect a decrease until data is collected students who are served in a and reported for the years where we implemented Setting IV-VIII environments Develop a system of assuring our strategies to serve more students in less (served in separate schools, that staff are recording the restrictive setting. residential placements, or settings accurately. homebound or hospital Reporting Consistency: The district continues to placements) by 1%. Require appropriate work with staff on correctly reporting setting data. In interventions before sending 2006-2007, the district reviewed the accuracy of the student to a more restrictive calculating and reporting of setting data at the setting. opening fall workshops with staff. In March 2007, eleven of fifty-one records (K-8) incorrectly reported Review of homebound the setting codes for students removed from the services to see if reduction of regular classroom more than 20% of their day. such services can occur if it is Upon review of setting data, follow up coaching with not medically necessary. center based teachers was conducted in the Spring of Review with Principals 2007 to improve accuracy of reporting. These problems that arise by placing procedures will be incorporated into the district’s students in the most restrictive Chapter 4 TSES systems manual and will be setting. available online beginning in the Fall 2007.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 27

Restructuring of Elementary Multiple Needs Programs: In February 2007, the district reviewed center based placements of students in our six Multiple Needs programs. After further analysis, the district planned to decrease the number of Multiple Needs programs from six to three. The district increased the number of Functional Academic Needs programs from three to five programs. This allowed more students to receive their center-based programming in their attendance area school. Also, it allowed more teaching FTE to be moved back to our resource model, so more students could continue to be served in a Setting I or II program.

In addition, 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.

Interventions: The district continued to adhere to placement procedures of requiring interventions and instructional strategies be in place prior to sending students to a Setting III program.

Homebound Procedures: Fall 2006 training occurred for all special education staff on the use of homebound instruction. Procedures were posted on the district’s website.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 28

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 Complete this section for next year’s report. from the prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data Progress/Results Analysis Status X will give evidence of progress? Increase the percentage of Allocate iFTE from one of our 2005-2006 Part B The percentage of students served in inclusive Outcome Met preschool students (age 3-5) center based classrooms to Setting Data as reported settings increased from 31.4% to 37.7% according to served in an environment with service children in other by the MDE. our District Data Profile. We were able to expand Outcome typically developing peers typical preschools and child our services to four Head Start programs in the area Continue X (including settings 1, 3, 4) by 3%. care settings. as well as several new preschools and child care settings. This rate continues to be below the state Other: explain Established additional rate and the state target. We will continue to work contracts with Head Start toward more inclusive settings for children ages 3 to programs in both Ramsey and 5. Washington County to provide special education Our biggest challenge is to be able to provide support services in these paraprofessional support in community settings for centers. children who are not toilet trained or who need 1:1 assistance for mobility. At the beginning of the 2006- 2007 school year, provide services to children in 11 different preschools, 4 Head Start classrooms and 2 child care centers, with the capacity to add additional sites during the school year.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 29

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 Complete this section for next year’s report. from the prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data Progress/Results Analysis Status X will give evidence of progress? General education and special Work with building leaders, Individual student or A district task force was formed during the 06-07 Outcome Met education teachers will develop special education and general building-wide positive school year to analyze the potential for the skills and knowledge education teachers to explore behavior intervention implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions Outcome necessary to apply meaningful and implement positive supports available upon and Supports (PBIS) at schools within the district. A Continue X interventions with students at risk behavior intervention request. review of behavioral data collection methods was of being referred for special programs for students at risk conducted across the K-12 buildings this year to Other: explain education. of removal from classrooms. examine approaches in current use. Administrators, Baseline data to be general education staff, and special education staff Related service teams explore collected from at least made site visits to four school districts implementing and define their role in one elementary. PBIS in their buildings. ISD 622 was a MDE grant ensuring fidelity to the recipient for PBIS implementation in the three Response To Intervention middle schools starting the fall of 2007. (RTI) model.

A district-wide core RtI team was developed and trained in Response to Intervention (RtI) systems. All elementary buildings completed an RtI needs assessment covering the areas of measurement, curriculum and instruction, and problem-solving teams. MCA reading data was also collected for each elementary building. An RtI pilot site was chosen at one elementary building and their leadership team has received intensive training from RtI consultants. Pilot site building staff also made site visits to two schools implementing RtI.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 30

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 Complete this section for next year’s report. from the prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data Progress/Results Analysis Status X will give evidence of progress? Improve communication between Para/teacher under whose Attendance list Multiple trainings were conducted on this topic over Outcome Met cooperating teacher and direction the para works will the course of the school year. The para feedback paraprofessional on job receive training with Wayne process was reviewed with both teachers and paras Outcome performance expectations. Urbaniak during opening workshop and later, during staff Continue X Forms turned into development workshops and individual building A para feedback form will special services available team meetings with coordinators. Other: explain occur for all paras by the end upon request. of September or if the para is Teachers did not consistently turn in the para hired after the school year has feedback forms at the end of the school year. They started the para will receive will be requested in the fall of 2008. the para feedback review with the teacher within the first Due to priorities placed on the new Q-comp two weeks of being hired initiative, was able to have Wayne Urbaniak out just once this year to work with paraprofessionals. We Prior to Thanksgiving, also offered all paraprofessionals the opportunity to Coordinators will have learn from him and other experts through the Metro checked the para feedback ECSU program. We were unable to do training with forms to assure that they have teacher para teams as we had hoped and will attempt been started for each para in to offer such training during the 07-08 school year. the buildings

At the end of the school year, the final form of the para feedback forms will be sent to the Special Services dept who will then forward them to HR

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 31

*Goal Statement: 2. Reduce all areas of non-compliance identified in record reviews. Complete this section using the Action Plans from the district’s existing MNCIMP:SR report from the Complete this section for next year’s report. prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data will give Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? Record reviews will result in Fall 2006 training of certified Peer review of colleague’s file On January 31, February 21 & 28, Outcome Met X compliance on focused file staff in one of four half-day using record review checklist 2007, district special education staff, reviews on following evaluation sessions. tool. Checklists collected-- results psychologists, social workers and ESL Outcome and evaluation report writing compiled and analyzed by CIMP staff received three hours of training Continue components: 3.1.5 leadership team. on the following evaluation compliance Evaluation Timelines, 3.2.12 topic: Other: explain Evaluation Report, 3.2.9  Evaluation timelines Secondary Transition Evaluation,  Evaluation Reports 5.13.2 Functional Behavioral  Secondary Transition Assessments, 3.2.6 Evaluations Nondiscriminatory Assessment  Functional Behavioral Components, and 3.4.10C Assessments SLD Evaluation Report.  Nondiscriminatory Assessments  SLD Evaluation Reports

This mandatory training also included a review of the district’s Chapter’s 1-3 Total Special Education Systems procedures located on the district website.

The 166 staff members who attended the training were provided copies of the evaluation training materials. Post training surveys indicate that 90% of staff felt they obtained valuable skills and information during the training. Peer reviews were not completed, since the district will be completing a self- review of records during the 2007-2008 school year in preparation for our 2008- 2009 Validation review by MDE. Evaluation data will be reported in our June 2008 CIMP Report.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 32

*Goal Statement: 2. Reduce all areas of non-compliance identified in record reviews. Complete this section using the Action Plans from the district’s existing MNCIMP:SR report from the Complete this section for next year’s report. prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data will give Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? Record reviews will result in Spring 2007 training of Peer review of colleague’s file IEP Planning & Compliance training Outcome Met compliance on focused file certified staff in one of four using record review checklist did not occur during the Spring 2007. reviews on following IEP half-day sessions. tool. Checklists collected-- results The district continued to work on Outcome Program Planning components: compiled and analyzed by CIMP Chapter 4 of the Total Special Continue X 4.1.3 IEP Team Members, 4.3.2 leadership team. Education Systems procedures which Goals & Objectives, 4.3.3. LRE will be posted on the district’s website Other: explain 4.3.5, IEP in effect, 4.3.11 State prior to training. The district will Assessments, and 4.12.4 Parental conduct mandatory IEP Planning and Consent. Compliance training in Fall 2007-2008.

Peer reviews were not completed, since the district will be completing a self- review of records during the 2007-2008 school year in preparation for our 2008- 2009 validation review by MDE. IEP Planning data will be reported in our June 2008 CIMP Report.

In the Spring 2007, the district sent six district teacher representatives to the MDE sponsored “IEP Managers Training”. Information from this training will be incorporated into our IEP Planning and Compliance training which will occur in Fall 2007-2008.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 33

*Goal Statement: 3. Increase the percent of infants and toddlers birth to age one with IFSPs. Complete this section using the Action Plans from the district’s existing MNCIMP:SR report from the Complete this section for next year’s report. prior year. *Desired Outcome *Strategies *What collected data will give Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? October 2004 state reporting data Infants who would likely meet Data as Evidence of Progress: Upon receipt of our 2005 district Outcome Met X was used to determine the percent eligibility criteria (condition Number of consultative IFSPs for profile data, it was clear that we of infants on IFSPs in the school known to hinder) and whose birth to age one. Proportion of achieved the target rate. The proportion Outcome Continue district (.14%). The performance parents refuse a full general population with IFSPs. of infants receiving special services in target established by OSEP is for assessment or direct services ISD 622 is aligned with state targets. Other: explain 2005 (.45%). We do not yet have will be placed on a The number of our consultative IFSPs the 2005 state data so it is unclear consultative IFSP. has increased as parents opt to retain as to whether the district is under the direct services of private practice identifying students at this time. and NICUs rather than refuse our Reporting accuracy and services altogether. consistency among school districts in Minnesota is questionable. Due to limitations of data we are unable to accurately assess our needs at this time.

12. Future Year Action Plan Directions (New Action Pan) 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.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 34

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 Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? Improve student achievement for Explore implementation of Targeted growth projections Outcome Met students receiving special Read 180 and other attained on Measures of Outcome Continue education (3rd, 4th, 5th, 11th math; instructional tools that are Academic Progress (MAP) and Other: explain 3rd, 5th, 10th reading). data driven and research annual improvement on based at elementary levels as comparable MCAs. a tier II intervention. (RFP July).

Collaboration of building principals and key stakeholders.

Continue work with Subject Area Committees, Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and Q comp building strategies.

Outcome Met Identification and elimination of Study disaggregated data Examination of Weighted Risk Outcome Continue cultural and racial barriers for relative to district initiated Ratios for 2006-2007 as reported Other: explain referral to special education and assessments on African by the MDE. provide evidence of change in American students to district policies and procedures. determine disproportional representation (see attached report per Elizabeth Watkins).

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 35

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 Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? Continue to increase the Continue to add additional 2006-2007 Part B Setting Data as Outcome Met percentage of preschool students community preschool sites reported by the MDE. Outcome Continue (age 3-5) served in an during the school year. For Other: explain environment with typically children traditionally in center developing peers to more closely based classrooms, provide align with state targets. instructional support for additional inclusion experiences. Outcome Met Implement year one and prepare Through implementation of a Student attendance area data. Outcome Continue for year two of service delivery three-year attrition model, Other: explain model changes at the middle students with mild to school level. moderate cognitive disabilities will be educated in their neighborhood schools.

Complete compliance and Record review using random Record review data and summary Outcome Met program effectiveness study of sample. of program evaluation findings. Outcome Continue district’s current special education Other: explain services to non-public schools in Review referral process and district 622. service delivery model for elementary, middle and high school students.

Involve building principals and teacher stakeholders in guided discussions and/or focus groups.

Outcome Met MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 36

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 Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? Implement use of RtI and PBIS in Continue training of staff and Individual student or building- Outcome Continue identified pilot sites district wide. building administration at wide positive behavior Other: explain implementation sites. intervention supports available upon request. For PBIS:  Six days training by Baseline data to be collected from MDE implementation sites.  Half time PBIS coach Universal screenings in  Building leadership implementation sites. teams meet once per month CAMPUS data collection for PBIS. For RtI:  Develop pyramid of AIMSweb data system for tiered interventions Response to Intervention (RtI).  Develop and implement a progress monitoring system using AIMSweb  Continue training with Building Problem Solving Teams

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 37

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 Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? Record reviews will result in Fall 2007-2008 training of Record reviews in 2007-2008 to Outcome Met compliance on focused file certified staff. prepare for MDE’s Ken’s visit. reviews on following IEP Peer review of colleague’s file Outcome Continue Program Planning components: using record review checklist 4.1.3 IEP Team Members, 4.3.2 tool. Checklists collected-- results Other: explain Goals & Objectives, 4.3.3. LRE compiled and analyzed by CIMP 4.3.5, IEP in effect, 4.3.11 State leadership team. Assessments, and 4.12.4 Parental Consent.

Goal Statement: 3. Increase graduation rate and decrease dropout rate.

Desired Outcome Strategies What collected data will give Progress/Results Analysis Status X evidence of progress? Reporting accuracy and Explore factors that impact Graduation and dropout rates that Outcome Met consistency among school districts special education graduation align more closely with state Outcome Continue in Minnesota is questionable. Due and drop out rate. rates. to limitations of data we are  follow-up senior Other: explain unable to accurately assess our graduation survey 2007 needs at this time.  other surveys and tools provided by MDE

Determine accuracy and comparability of trend data

Develop plan to address known barriers.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 38

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 http://education.state.mn.us/mde/Learning_Support/Special_Education/Statewide_Performance/State_Local_Outcome_Data/index.html  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 Annually – District results can be found in the Section 619 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 Family Stakeholder Information template. Additional district specific questions will be added. Part B Sampling procedures will correlate with record review procedures (below) which are sensitive to racial, grade, disability, setting and other state required components

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 39

Data Sources and Targeted Population Timing of Measurements Year Collected 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 Based on our special education student population of 1698 students., Ages 3 to 21 Special Education Student MDE Validation 91 Part B & C 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 Based on our Part C, special education population of 57 students, 20 Birth to age 3 Early Childhood Infants and Toddlers MDE Validation records will be reviewed in the Spring 2008. Longitudinal Record Reviews Conducted and reported on the year prior to Review of 6-10 part B files for students in Fed Settings III and IV, (Optional) MDE Validation closely analyzing utilization of district procedures for placement in these settings.

MNCIMP:SR 4/9/2018 District Name: ISD 622 NSP-MPLWD-OAK 40