School Leadership 2.0
A Network Connecting School Leaders From Around The Globe
Reflections on the Special Education Snapshot
I imagine it will be anti-climatic when the bureaucratic button is finally pushed to close Part I of this year's biggest data drama. The Special Education Snapshot is - or will soon be - done.
For those of you who will not start watching until Season Two, the special education snapshot - or the annual count of all New York State students who receive special education services as of the first school day in December - was reported this year, not through aggregate counts, but via individual student records in the data warehouse.
What must those who had the authority to nix this crazy idea be thinking? Personally, I am glad we moved forward.
We have completed the logistics necessary for the full inclusion of students with disabilities. If all students should have access to the same programs and the same quality of instruction, if they are to be held to the same rigorous and relevant standards, then why shouldn't the oversight of their programs be driven by the same data source? Full inclusion means full participation in the same, if somewhat dysfunctional, system.
This crazy idea forced - sometimes abruptly, sometimes without enough support - those who report the data, those who guide the curriculum and instruction, those who coordinate the special services, and those who worry about the money, to collaborate and cooperate, learn each other's language, and, yes, feel each other's pain. Full inclusiveness should apply to school personnel as well as students.
Finally, this crazy idea will allow the data to get better - eventually, if not today. VESID is wisely not pushing too hard to determine the causes of those 10% year-to-year discrepancies. Although the data was not, and will never be, perfect, forcing aggregate counts to be driven up from individual student records will produce better data, oversight, and (hopefully) outcomes. I have spoken with many on the special education side of the house who are privately grateful for the December Snapshot / Spring cleaning.
Yes, I am tired. Yes, much of this was made up as we went along. Yes, we are not finished. But we can - and should - reflect on the good we have done.
What do you think? Please join the discussion.
For those of you who will not start watching until Season Two, the special education snapshot - or the annual count of all New York State students who receive special education services as of the first school day in December - was reported this year, not through aggregate counts, but via individual student records in the data warehouse.
What must those who had the authority to nix this crazy idea be thinking? Personally, I am glad we moved forward.
We have completed the logistics necessary for the full inclusion of students with disabilities. If all students should have access to the same programs and the same quality of instruction, if they are to be held to the same rigorous and relevant standards, then why shouldn't the oversight of their programs be driven by the same data source? Full inclusion means full participation in the same, if somewhat dysfunctional, system.
This crazy idea forced - sometimes abruptly, sometimes without enough support - those who report the data, those who guide the curriculum and instruction, those who coordinate the special services, and those who worry about the money, to collaborate and cooperate, learn each other's language, and, yes, feel each other's pain. Full inclusiveness should apply to school personnel as well as students.
Finally, this crazy idea will allow the data to get better - eventually, if not today. VESID is wisely not pushing too hard to determine the causes of those 10% year-to-year discrepancies. Although the data was not, and will never be, perfect, forcing aggregate counts to be driven up from individual student records will produce better data, oversight, and (hopefully) outcomes. I have spoken with many on the special education side of the house who are privately grateful for the December Snapshot / Spring cleaning.
Yes, I am tired. Yes, much of this was made up as we went along. Yes, we are not finished. But we can - and should - reflect on the good we have done.
What do you think? Please join the discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by EduData on
-
This has been monumental. I have put together some data sets for each of our buildings to look at and see as a result of having the raw data so easily available. The can now see a more accurate picture of their numbers and students. We are loving it!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Susan J Bove on
-
As it ends, it just begins with more to make up as we go. I paint for you a new picture I know I will face. Our UPK has expanded to outside preschools that received federal aid (i.e. headstart). If our student needs services, our UPK program is half day, if the parent wants whole day instruction, we have now created an 0666 and 0777 overlap. We need to code the student appropiately, the thinking needs to be the "seat" vs "services". As we opened this can of special education reporting, many worms have come out. I present this as a problem only because I don't know the solution.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Wagner on
-
Hi Susan,
I agree this initiative has produced many data-element questions, some of which were never anticipated until we were far along into the process.
The location code for PK or UPK students is either the district building of enrollment, a BOCES, or a generic BEDS code (ending in 0666) if services are provided by a Community-Based Organization under contract with the district.
If the student is also a student with a disability receiving services from district personnel at the student's home (i.e., 0777), the student's enrollment record should reflect the PK or UPK placement location rather than the home location. Further details about the student's special education services will be contained in his or her Snapshot record.
Appendix G (rows 2 and 3) of the Policy Manual address these scenarios. As always, feel free to call if we can be of additional assistance.
Ken -
-
Permalink Reply by Ellen Moore on
-
Ken,
We have been working together for ten long, but rewarding months. Although our combined efforts have moved the integration of data to new heights, you have taken the lead to support districts' efforts in regard to accountability and verification.
I have witnessed at first hand your dedication to your work. In spite of the craziness, I have witnessed the success of the district folks that we worked so closely with. In my opinion, it feels good not to be finished because through all of our efforts we are making a difference in the lives of students. We should look forward to reflecting upon the work that we have finished, so that we can continue the good that we have done. -
JOIN SL 2.0
SUBSCRIBE TO
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 2.0
School Leadership 2.0 is the premier virtual learning community for school leaders from around the globe. Our community is a subscription based paid service ($19.95/year or only $1.99 per month for a trial membership) which will provide school leaders with outstanding resources. Learn more about membership to this service by clicking one our links below.
Click HERE to subscribe as an individual.
Click HERE to learn about group membership (i.e. association, leadership teams)
__________________
CREATE AN EMPLOYER PROFILE AND GET JOB ALERTS AT
SCHOOLLEADERSHIPJOBS.COM
FOLLOW SL 2.0
© 2024 Created by William Brennan and Michael Keany
Powered by
