Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
PJ Settlement
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

PJ Settlement

1,136
views

Published on

PJ ET AL v State of CT Board of Education, ET AL …

PJ ET AL v State of CT Board of Education, ET AL

Created by Deborah Sullivan

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,136
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. PJ SETTLEMENT OUTCOMES AND GOALS
  • 2. PJ ET AL v State of CT Board of Education, ET AL
    • 1991 a lawsuit filed by 5 school-age children identified as Intellectually Disabled and their families
    • Became a class action lawsuit on December 13, 1993
    • Class membership was all school-age children with the label Intellectually Disabled on or after Feb. 20, 1991 who are not educated in regular classrooms
    • Filed under IDEA as an issue of FAPE and LRE
  • 3. GOALS AND OUTCOMES
    • An increase in the percent of students with intellectual disability who are placed in regular classes , as measured by the federal definition which is 80% or more of the school day with non-disabled peers.
  • 4. GOALS AND OUTCOMES
    • A reduction in the disparate identification of students with intellectual disability by LEA, by racial group, by ethnic group, or by gender group. Statewide, African-American and Hispanic students are more than twice as likely to be identified with intellectual and emotional disabilities than their Caucasian peers. African-American males are five times more likely.
  • 5. GOALS AND OUTCOMES
    • An increase in the mean and median percent of the school day that students with intellectual disability spend with non-disabled peers. (TWNDP- Time With Non-Disabled Peers )
  • 6. GOALS AND OUTCOMES
    • An increase in the percent of students with intellectual disability who attend the school they would attend if not disabled. Therefore, schools districts need to reduce outplacement and district-wide programs.
  • 7. GOALS AND OUTCOMES
    • An increase in the percent of students with intellectual disability who participate in school-sponsored extracurricular activities with non-disabled peers.
  • 8. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
    • Focused monitoring system
    • 16 districts now being monitored through site visits, improvement plans, training
    • Quarterly reports to the Court, Plaintiffs, and the Expert Advisory Panel over a five year period
    • Expert Advisory Panel consists of four earned doctoral professionals from various universities throughout the United States
  • 9. TEAMWORK
    • The Expert Advisory Panel and the State of Connecticut agree that this is not a “Special Education issue”! To be successful this will take teamwork amongst district leadership, special education and general education teachers.
    • It must especially be a joint commitment between general and special education.
  • 10. TEAMWORK CONTINUED…
    • In the second annual report of the Expert Advisory Panel concerns were expressed that the Connecticut State Department of Education has focused training and efforts to special educators
  • 11. TEAMWORK CONTINUED…
    • “ If principal attention is not shifted from the exclusive purview of special educators to BOTH general and special educators, with general educators taking the lead, we project little sustainable progress across all five goals…”
  • 12. TEAMWORK CONTINUED…
    • “ Since general education is the base for education of all children…it is logical that significant movement on the five goals of P.J. will not be accomplished without the involvement of district as well as school level leadership and general education teachers.”
  • 13. INCLUSION RESEARCH
    • Placement in inclusive programs led to academic gains for students with disabilities, including improved performance on standardized tests, mastery of IEP goals, grades, on-task behaviors and motivation to learn. (National Center for Education Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995)
  • 14. INCLUSION RESEARCH
    • Students with ID educated in inclusive classes test higher in literacy measures than students educated in separate special education classes. (Buckley, Bird, Sacks, & Archer 2000)
  • 15. INCLUSION RESEARCH
    • Placement in inclusive classrooms does not interfere with the academic performance of students without disabilities with respect to the amount of allocated time and engaged instructional time, the rate of interruption to planned activities and students’ achievement on test scores and report card grades. (York, Vandercook, MacDonald, Heise-Neff, & Caughey, 1992)
  • 16. WHERE TO BEGIN
    • Working/training with teams to begin the process of inclusion
    • Paradigm shift to: general education placement needs to be the first consideration
    • Ensure the proper identification of students
  • 17. WHERE CAN YOU LEARN MORE?
    • State Department of Education
    • Special Education Resource Center
    • CT Parent Advocacy Center
    • CT Coalition for Inclusive Education
    • Department of Mental Retardation
    • State and national websites