Positive Supports for Behavior and Discipline Resource Database

The final rule published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2016, amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to help to ensure that States meaningfully identify LEAs with significant disproportionality and that States assist LEAs in ensuring that children with disabilities are properly identified for services, receive necessary services in the least restrictive environment, and are not disproportionately removed from their educational placements by disciplinary removals. This webinar, from February 2, 2017 will provide a broad overview of the contents of the rule, including the requirements on the standard methodology proposed, reservation of funds for comprehensive coordinated early intervening services, and data requirements and calculations.

Replacing a virtual conference, there will be three symposia held, each with three components. The first component will be pre-work materials posted online by OSEP prior to the event. The second component is a two-hour event that will be a combination of live and pre-taped presentations. The third component will begin one week following the event, when participants will have the opportunity to engage in one or more discussion groups related to the Symposium topic. Virtual Symposia are available to all grantees.

Resource page for coordinated aftercare services. Youth who receive appropriate aftercare services, including educational supports, immediately after release from a correctional facility are three times as likely to remain lawfully in the community after 12 months. This includes educational record transfers that are accurate, timely, confidential, and complete. Such records transfer must be compliant with relevant State and Federal laws and must contain all Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)–mandated documents in the individualized education program (IEP)., Aftercare services should be evidence based and include wraparound services, such as school re-enrollment programs, mentoring, the use of transition coordinators, and parental skill development. The best aftercare services should be coordinated with strategic partners to ensure a seamless transition from the facility to the community.

Depending on an individual youth’s age or level of need, reentry may look different. When a youth exits a correctional facility, he or she may return to his or her home school or a group home setting. Some youth who age out of juvenile settings but have not completed their sentences may be transferred to adult correctional facilities to continue their educational process. In contrast, a youth who has reached the age of majority at the juvenile setting and has completed his or her sentence may return to the community and enter the workforce or postsecondary educational settings. To ensure successful outcomes for youth with disabilities, aftercare services need to be planned for and systematically coordinated. Of the various paths to reentry a youth may take, the coordination of aftercare services is likely to be more effective when managed by the correctional facility. Identifying personnel with knowledge of IDEA requirements and effective transition planning to oversee transition and reentry coordination also should be the responsibility of the correctional facility.

Reentry planning for youth with or without disabilities should begin as soon as a youth arrives at a facility and should outline transition issues, plus academic, career, and educational goals, and provide students with educational and career programming that prepares them for the challenges they might encounter after release from custody. The 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that students with disabilities who are older than 16 years must have specific documentation of age- and disability-appropriate transition services and plans in their individualized education program (IEP). Transitioning to community-based schools should be coordinated, be outcome oriented, and promote successful movement between the facility and the community, using established evidence- and research-based practices. This is a complex issue that needs to be organized by a transition team, including correctional staff, the youth themselves, their families, community partners, and local educational representatives. A consistent transition counseling and youth reassessment process while at the facility and a planned sequence of services after release are integral to the plan’s success.

Research tells us that juveniles experience extremely high recidivism rates (up to 55%), and it is even worse for those with disabilities. Moreover, many youth do not reengage with educational systems after exiting from correctional systems. The reconnection to school is essential because education is an important protective factor in reentry success; poor academic performance is a risk factor linked to recidivism. Youth who do not attend school regularly have higher numbers of delinquency referrals than those who regularly attend. Partnerships between local educational systems and justice systems are an essential component of juvenile reentry because these partnerships help remedy two critical gaps in reentry: a shortage of appropriate schools for those leaving custody (especially for those with disabilities) and delayed access to local schools. This transition must not happen haphazardly but should be carefully coordinated to promote positive student outcomes. Below, we summarize the best practices for meeting the needs of youth exiting correctional facilities.

Overview of individualized Instruction as it relates to juvenlile justice. As defined by the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), youth within correctional facilities are entitled to a free appropriate education (FAPE). Appropriate educational services have long been considered a critical element of successful reintegration into society, assuming that exposure to the general education curriculum will help prepare students for future success. However, the definition of the word appropriate has been highly debated. A growing consensus among experts is that an appropriate education includes greater individualization for all students to provide them with access to the curriculum. Youth with disabilities in correctional facilities also may have a myriad of educational, social-behavioral, and mental health or health-related issues. Intensifying instruction for these youth is particularly important because their unique needs may require greater individualization to foster better outcomes.

List of resources pertaining to restorative justice.

List of resources that relate to Trauma-informed care.

List of resources for Tiered academic and behavioral supports.

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has developed a voluntary State Correctional Education Self-Assessment (SCES) to assist States in self-assessing their systems for providing special education and related services to students with disabilities in correctional facilities. This self-assessment addresses some—but not all—the requirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as they apply to States, State educational agencies (SEAs), and public agencies (including local educational agencies [LEAs] and responsible noneducational public agencies) in educating these students.

Youth with disabilities are disproportionately represented within correctional facilities, with nearly four times as many students requiring special education and related services in the adjudicated population versus the general population. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), youth with disabilities must be identified and receive the special education and related services for which they are eligible while they are incarcerated. Unfortunately, educational practices within correctional facilities often do not adhere to the practices mandated by IDEA, with less than half of youth with a diagnosed learning disability attending a special education program while in custody. It is critical that these youth receive the educational, social-emotional, behavioral, and career planning services for which they are eligible so that they can attain new skills and exit facilities prepared to live a more productive life. In what follows, we summarize the challenges and best practices for meeting the diverse educational needs of youth within correctional facilities.

This PDF contains data on suspension and expulsions and the use of seclusion and restraint across the nation and state-by-state. Data include information on preschools, and are disaggregated by race/ethnicity and disability status.This PDF contains data on suspension and expulsions and the use of seclusion and restraint across the nation and state-by-state.

This Center was established by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to define, develop, implement, and evaluate a multi-tiered approach to Technical Assistance that improves the capacity of states, districts and schools to establish, scale-up and sustain the PBIS framework. Emphasis is given to the impact of implementing PBIS on the social, emotional and academic outcomes for students with disabilities.

During this presentation experts, including current OSEP grantees, discussed what we know about:

1. Determining the factors that drive high expectations, such as child, family and other stakeholder engagement;
2. How to support each child and family in establishing and meeting those expectations;
3. Working towards each child having access to an education that meets her or his unique and individual needs;
4. How high expectations relate to State academic content standards; and
5. Incorporating evidence-based practices in the IEP.

All of this will be presented in light of how these practices and principles relate to the United States Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, commonly referred to as “Endrew F.”

There is a growing evidence base on the relationship between positive learning environments, child development, and academic achievement. OSEP’s second Symposium highlighted core principles relating to creating and maintaining safe and supportive learning environments and why and how States, districts, programs, and schools should consider integrating this work into their improvement plans. The Symposium included examples of aligning initiatives, funds, personnel preparation, evidence-based practices, and professional development in early childhood and K-12 settings. Information shared will be helpful for technical assistance providers, personnel development providers, and parents.