Waching daily May 30 2017

Hey yo! welcome to our new video

Today we are going to show you

How to training shooting football with power

by yourself at home

For more infomation >> Easy Training shooting football with power Tutorial | sidekickzer - Duration: 3:00.

-------------------------------------------

How to draw a butterfly with soft pastels 🎨 Butterfly - Duration: 10:53.

This is a sandpaper.

For more infomation >> How to draw a butterfly with soft pastels 🎨 Butterfly - Duration: 10:53.

-------------------------------------------

Dolbadarn Castle Abandoned in Gwynedd North Wales - History Urban Explore - Duration: 3:47.

For more infomation >> Dolbadarn Castle Abandoned in Gwynedd North Wales - History Urban Explore - Duration: 3:47.

-------------------------------------------

How To Make Money Online Fast From Home 2017 - Case 3 $1,000 Per Day - Duration: 31:26.

The best way to make money online fast from home

is from trading and investing

So in this video we will help you the best way to make money online from home

go to http://linkus.biz to get the detail

For more infomation >> How To Make Money Online Fast From Home 2017 - Case 3 $1,000 Per Day - Duration: 31:26.

-------------------------------------------

Part B Suspension and Expulsion—What You Need to Know About Indicator B4 - Duration: 55:20.

>> All right, we are gonna go ahead and get started this afternoon

because Nancy and I have

quite a bit of information that we want to share with you

and we want to make sure we get through all of it.

So welcome everyone to our IDC webinar on Part B, suspension, expulsion.

What you need to know about indicator B4.

This back to basics webinar provides

an overview of B4A

which addresses significant discrepancy

in the rates of suspension and expulsions for children's ages

three through 21 with IEPs and B4B

which addresses significant discrepancy

in the rates of suspension and expulsions

by race/ethnicity for children ages

3-21 with IEPs.

I'm Julie Bowmar, director of IDC

and I'm joined today by Nancy O'Hara

who's an IDC state liaison

and also a member of our disproportionality

and equity workgroup for IDC.

We are anticipating a pretty large number of attendees today

so we are keeping the lines muted during the webinar.

We ask that you make use of the chat box

if you have any questions

or comments throughout our webinar,

and we will be doing the best that we can to make sure

that we respond to as many comments

as we can during the next hour.

Throughout this webinar we will use significant discrepancy

to describe indicators 4A and 4B.

We'll use a form of the term suspension/expulsion

to refer to out of school suspension/expulsions

totally greater than 10 days

as these are the data

that states are requires to examine for indicators

B4A and B4B.

With this webinar we'll cover the basics of B4.

This webinar is intended to provide

an overview of this indicator

for staff who are new or who want a refresher.

It is not meant to take

a deeper dive into this indicator.

We'll start by discussion the requirements of the indicators,

the two comparison options for indicator B4,

and also the data sources that you'll need.

We'll then review common methodologies

that states can use to identify districts

with significant discrepancy.

We'll then discuss some cautions

for indicator B4

particularly around its relationship

with the other equity requirements in IDEA.

We'll then end the webinar with a summary

and some helpful resources.

So let's go ahead and get started,

and I am going to turn things over to Nancy O'Hara

who is going to get us started

with our discussion of the requirements.

>> Great, good afternoon. Thank you, Julie. Hi everybody.

So we're gonna start today

with--that's not working--

B4A and significant discrepancy in discipline.

You can see that the wording of the indicator is there

and that states must report the percent of district

that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspension/expulsion

for children with disabilities.

In order to do that states

have to have defined significant discrepancy.

Although the indicator requires

you to report a certain percent,

it gives states some flexibility

in how they define significant discrepancy.

So significant discrepancy will be defined

by your comparison option that you select,

the methodology for doing your calculations

as well as threshold,

and some of you will also use a minimum

N or cell size.

And we're gonna talk about all of these

as we move through the next hour.

So just know that that's all part

of the definition of significant discrepancy

As most of you probably know, B4A is reported in a state performance plan.

It is an indicator, it is a results indicator.

The target is set by the state

with the advice of your stakeholders.

And in the APR what you will do

is compare your state's actual performance

to the target that was set

and if there is any slippage of course

you'll explain that.

B4A as opposed to B4B when we get to it in a little

while is a one step process.

So your basic responsibility

is to determine which of your districts

or LEAs meet the state's definition

of significant discrepancy.

So you'll review the data

on suspensions and expulsions

for greater than 10 days for all of the LEAs

within your state

and based on the definition that you've created

and you'll determine which of those meet that definition

and that's the percentage that you'll report.

B4A does require a review of policies, procedures,

and practices

but it happens basically

after you've made the determination

of who meets the definition of significant discrepancy.

So states are required to insure

that a review of policies, procedures,

and practices is conducted with any LEA

or district that is determined

to have significant discrepancy.

However, whether or not you find compliance,

non-compliance when you conduct that review

does not impact those who met it

for the indicator report.

And certainly if you find an LEA

that had non-compliance

in the policies, procedures,

and practices then you must require them to correct

that non-compliance in accordance with OSEP memo 09-02.

Most states--and I'll probably say this again

when we talk about B4B--conduct this policies,

practices and procedure review in one of two ways.

Either through a self-assessment that the state has created,

they give out to the LEAs

that are required to conduct it

and the LEAs submit it back,

the state reviews that and makes

some determinations of compliance

or non-compliance.

The probably second most common way

that states do this is either through a desk audit

or an on-site visit

but state directed monitoring of the LEA

for the records that would relate to this indicator.

We're gonna move on to B4B and yes that whole slide

probably if you are familiar is the language of the indicator.

It happens to be a length indicator

but we've highlighted some of the words

that we think are critical for this one.

So the first difference in B4B

is that it is significant discrepancy

by race or ethnicity and again

it's in the rates of suspensions and expulsions policies

for greater than 10 days in a school year

and there are policies,

practices or procedures

that have contributed to the significant discrepancy

and are not in compliance with IDA requirements.

So it is an A and a B

which is right in the language of the indicator

to clearly note that it's a two-step action.

Again as with A a state

must have a definition of significant discrepancy

that's gonna talk about comparison method,

calculation method,

what kind of threshold or bar

are you looking at as well

as if you choose to use any minimum

N or cell sizes.

All of those things create your definition

and then the districts of the state

are compared against that definition,

this time by race or ethnicity.

It's also very important while we're here

and I don't want to forget to say it,

that as Julie already alluded

to what we do for B4B

cannot be confused with the requirements

related to significant disproportionality and discipline.

The requirements are different,

states should not use the same calculations

and definitions for determining significant discrepancy

or hear B4B

as they use for significant disproportionality.

We're gonna talk about this a lot in a section

that we called B4 cautions.

I wanted to point it out because this is an area

where states have had a lot of confusion in the past

so we think it's important to be really clear on this section.

As you know, B4B is reported in the SPPAPR, B4B

is a compliance indicator

as opposed to A which was a results indicator.

So the target must be zero for B4B.

And states must compare your actual performance to the target

and explain any slippage of course in the APR.

B4B is a two-step process.

So if you'll remember with A it's only one step.

You just looked at your districts to see who met your definition.

Here we start with the similar process.

So we look at the data for the state,

look at each LEA's data to determine

who meets the state definition of significant discrepancy

and then for those that meet that definition we determine

if they have policies, procedures,

and practices that contribute

to the significant discrepancy

and do not comply with the requirements

related to IDA.

And it is important to note that

OSEP has been very specific in the indicator

and it's repeated here in this slide

that it is a requirement of IDEA

but specifically looking at those related

to the development and implementation of IEPs,

the use of positive behavioral interventions

and supports,

and procedural safeguards.

So it's pretty prescriptive

in the kinds of areas

that you're gonna look at.

So as I just said, states must conduct

this review of policies, procedures,

and practice for any district

that met that definition.

You identify a district

with significant discrepancy

by race and ethnicity

only when they met the state definition

and they had noncompliance after you've done

the policies, procedures, and practices review.

So there's a very distinct difference between A and B

and when the review comes in,

and how it impacts the determination

of significant discrepancy.

And of course if you find non-compliance

in significant discrepancy

you must require those districts

to correct that identified non-compliance.

So we're gonna test your knowledge and let you

just think to yourself about this

but I also want to point out

that we're kind of nearing the end of this first section

so if you have any specific questions

about what we've just said feel free to use the chat box

and think about this question.

Which of the following is true about B4A?

It's a results indicator,

states are permitted to set their own targets,

it uses a one step process to identify districts,

or all of the above.

And the answer is D, all of the above.

So just as a summary as we said

A is a results indicator.

You set your own targets

and it only is a one steep process.

Let's test your knowledge one more time.

Which of the following is false about B4B?

It is a compliance indicator?

States must set the target at 100%,

it uses a two-step process to identify districts,

or none of the above?

And the answer is B, 100% was not correct.

States must set their target at 0%

for this compliance indicator.

A was true, it is a compliance indicator and C

was true, it is a two-step process.

Okay, we're not gonna talk about the comparison options,

one of those first decisions

that you have to make

when you are developing your definition

of significant discrepancy for either A or for B

you must choose a comparison option.

So you are required to compare the data

about districts in one of two ways.

So you may choose to compare the rates

of suspension/expulsion for children

with disabilities among all the districts

within your state.

Or you can choose to compare the rates

of suspensions and expulsions for children

with disabilities to children

without disabilities within one district.

So again I think this is information

that most of us have been used

to using as we move along.

States may have different comparison methods

for A and for B.

you're also not required to keep using the same method

once you've made a decision.

You could change it down the road

if you decide

that that's something you wanted to do as a state.

we looked into the indicator analysis that OSEP publishes every year

about what the state data looks like

and how states are using the reporting

for the SPP indicators

and so you can see here there's a chart for B4A

and B4B

that most states use comparison option one.

Comparison option one for sake of brevity

on these slides

is the comparison of children

with disabilities among all the LEAs in this state.

And you can see in both A and B

that's where most of the states--this is two years' worth of data.

That's where most of the states

go with the comparison methodology.

But you can see that those numbers changed

just a little bit in the two years

that we have in this slide so states

do not stick to the same method

necessarily all the time.

They may change for some reason.

And comparison option two is the option

of comparing students

with disabilities to students

without disabilities within a district

and you can see that there are also a number of states

although less than the first option that do that every year.

And again there's slight changes

because probably if they went from one

to the other then it impacts both.

So those are the comparison options

that shows you how states are using it.

So there's some considerations to think about

and one as I've already said,

states may use different comparison options

for B4A and B4B.

You don't have to use the same ones at all.

But you have to think about it

when you're thinking about the comparison options

that you may not collect all of the data needed

or have access to it

if you want to use the comparison option of students

without disabilities within a district.

Do you have all of that data on children

without disabilities?

Does your department have access to that?

So that is a piece to think about,

and think about how timely would that data be

and is it available?

You also want to think about what do

the comparisons tell you?

So if you compare children

with disabilities to children

without disabilities within a district

then in District

A let's say if that District

A suspends

and expels lots of kids

and there's not much difference

between students with

and without disabilities

then you probably won't see much about disproportionality there

unless there's difference among the races

when you're looking at B.

But if you have District

A as I said is a high suspender,

they like to suspend kids,

that's their go-to disciplinary practice

and you compare that district,

students with disabilities among

all the other district students with disabilities

then you may see where some of that

significant discrepancy is occurring.

So you'll want to think about this within your state,

and it's a decision

that you may want to come back to every now

and then and think is this still the right way?

We've gotten a lot better in our state

and our disciplinary practices,

maybe it's time to think about other methodology,

or the other comparison methods.

So it's a decision that you make

but you could come back to it over time

and think about it again.

So I'm gonna test your knowledge one more time.

So this is true or false,

if you select the option

for comparing children within a district

then you will need to make sure

that you have access to suspension/expulsion for children

without disabilities, true or false?

And the answer is true.

Certainly the comparison within a district

is that comparison rate of children

with and without disabilities.

So sometimes that's a challenge

for special education

to get for this data to have

all that data on children without disabilities.

So just be aware of that.

I am now going to turn it back over to Julie and she's gonna help us

talk about data sources.

>> Thank you, Nancy, all right so switching gears

a little bit although Nancy

has already touched a little bit on the data sources

that are gonna be needed so let's go ahead and dig in.

So the comparison option that your state selects

is gonna dictate what data

that you're gonna need in order

to calculate those suspension/expulsion rates.

So both B4A and B4B

require states to use the data collected

for reporting under section 618 of IDEA.

It's important to remember that any data that you use

to calculate the analyses for indicator B4

is what we are calling on this slide lag data.

That means that it's from the schoolyear

before the actual reporting period.

So for example if you're getting ready for your next APR

that's gonna bee due in February of 2018

that's the FFY 2016 APR those data

are actually gonna come

from the 2015/16 school year for B4.

So there's that one year lag

as compared to the rest of the data

that you're gonna be reporting in your FFY 2016 APR.

And just another reminder that again

these are data for children ages three through 21.

A lot of the indicators require 6-21

but this one is actually 3-21

that you're looking at suspension/expulsion data for.

States need to use the data collected for EDFacts File C006

which is the report of children

with disabilities IDEA suspension/expulsions

again for ages 3 through 21

and for all seven racial/ethnic categories

in order to complete the analyses for indicator B4.

States will also need to use Child Count

and Educational Environment

Data for children ages six through

21 which is C002

as well as for children ages

three through five which is C089.

In addition if states are comparing suspension/expulsion rates

for children with disabilities to children

without disabilities then states

will also need those counts of children

without disabilities and also suspension/expulsion

for children without disabilities.

So again that was what Nancy was talking about

in the previous section.

So for all of the calculations you will definitely need your IDEA data

but then if you're comparing within a district

those children with disabilities to children

without disabilities then you'll need that additional data as well.

So we're gonna do a quick test your knowledge, it's fill in the blank.

States will need suspension/expulsion

for children ages blank through blank.

And as we just discussed again

it's ages three through 21.

And another one, states must use

blank suspension/expulsion data

totally greater than 10 days.

And we're looking here for out of school suspension/expulsion

totally greater than 10 days.

So now we're gonna move on and talk a little bit about methodologies.

So this is another decision point.

Nancy discussed the first one

which is your comparison option.

So your first decision that you need to make

is which comparison option

that you're going to use,

and then your next decision that you're going to make

is what methodology are you going to use?

And so these are definitely sequential

because the comparison option

that you select impacts

which methods that you can use

and which ones are going to be appropriate.

So during this section we're only going to highlight

a couple of different methods

and that's just because of the time

that we have allowed for this webinar.

You can definitely find more information

about other methodologies in our IDC

TA guide on indicator B4

and we will definitely put that link up

and put the full name of that TA guide

when Nancy talks about resources at the end of this webinar.

So states may select different methods for B4A

and B4B

and if you've selected a different comparison option

for B4A and B4B

then that may actually be what you have to do in order

to make sure that your method for that indicator is appropriate.

So first we're gonna talk about the first comparison option and again

this is a reminder that involves comparing suspension/expulsion rates

for children with disabilities among the districts within a state.

So as we discussed states

can choose among different options

to make this comparison.

In the TA guide we discussed some different options

such as percentiles, rate ratios,

standard deviations.

The most popular option,

or the most common option that states tend to use

to make this comparison for either B4A

or B4B

is simply comparing the district rate

to the state rate.

So for B4A that means

comparing the district level suspension/expulsion

for children with disabilities

to the state level suspension/expulsion

for children with disabilities.

For B4B this means

comparing the district level suspension/expulsion

for children with disabilities from each racial/ethnic group

to the state level suspension rate

for children with disabilities.

So we're gonna walk through how to calculate the rates

that you'll need in order to use this methodology.

So in this example this is again for B4

A.

So district one had 24 children

with disabilities suspended/expelled

and there are 110 children

with disabilities in this district.

So the district suspension/expulsion

is 21.8%

because all we do is divide the children

with disabilities suspended/expelled

by the all children

with disabilities in that district.

State A which is the bottom rate example

that you have is calculating that state rate.

So if the state here had 759 children

with disabilities suspended/expelled

and there are 6,479 children

with disabilities in the state

we would simply divide those two numbers

and we would get a rate of 11.7%.

So in this case

if the state level suspension/expulsion rate

for children with disabilities for state

A is 11.7%

then district one's suspension/expulsion rate

for children with disabilities which is 21.8%

is higher than the state level suspension/expulsion rate

for children with disabilities.

So at this point the state

will need to set a threshold for

when significant discrepancy is occurring.

They're gonna have to figure out

how much of a discrepancy

they're willing to tolerate

in their state before it becomes significant.

So we'll talk about thresholds in a couple of minutes,

but first I want to keep going through the different rates.

And I see that there are some chat questions

coming in which it looks like Nancy's responding to

so I'm gonna not break at the moment.

I'm gonna keep going through this

and then hopefully we'll cover those questions as well.

So moving on we're next gonna go

through an example for B4B,

and this is very, very similar to the calculation

that we just went through.

So first what we're gonna do is

we're gonna calculate the suspension/expulsion

for black or African American children in district

one and we're gonna do that

by dividing the three black or African American children

with disabilities who were suspended/expelled

by the total number of black

or African American children with disabilities.

So this suspension/expulsion rate

for the district comes out to 10%.

We're then gonna use the same state rate

that we just calculated on the previous slide.

Note that this is the suspension/expulsion rate

for all children with disabilities in this state.

The suspension/expulsion for each of the racial/ethnic

groups in each district

is compared to this same state rate.

So in this example

if the suspension/expulsion rate

for black or African American children

with disabilities in district one is 10%

that is lower than state A's suspension/expulsion rate

for all children with disabilities which is 11.7%

so no significant discrepancy exists

for this particular racial/ethnic group in this district.

Okay, so again there are other methodologies that states can use

that are acceptable for that first comparison option

where you're comparing children

with disabilities among the districts within the state.

We just covered one.

We would absolutely encourage states

if you're interested in exploring those other options

to look at our B4

TA guide which walks you through all of those various options.

I am gonna now switch gears and talk about the second comparison option.

If your state chooses to use this comparison option

which compares the rates of suspension/expulsions

for children with disabilities to the rates for children

without disabilities within each district

then there are two different calculation methodologies.

We're gonna discuss the ratio in our examples.

So for this particular example for B4A

the rate ratio compares a district

level suspension/expulsion for children

with disabilities

to the same district suspension/expulsion rate

for all children without disabilities.

And for B4B

the rate ratio compares the district

level suspension/expulsion rate

for children with disabilities from each racial/ethnic group

to the district's suspension rate

for all children without disabilities.

So we're gonna walk through an example 'cause I know that was a lot to absorb

in that one slide there.

SO first we're gonna talk about an example for B4A.

So in this particular example

we're gonna calculate rates

for children with and without disabilities.

So in the first box we calculate the rate

for children with disabilities

by dividing the children

with disabilities suspended/expelled in district

one by the total number of children

with disabilities in district one.

So we're doing that 24 by 110

and we're getting a rate of 21.8%.

So in this district 21.8%

of their children with disabilities were suspended/expelled.

The second calculation is we do that for children

without disabilities within that same district.

You'll see that this is still within district one.

So we're gonna calculate the rate for children

without disabilities by dividing

the suspension/expulsion rate--I'm sorry,

we're gonna divide the number of suspension/expulsions for children

without disabilities in district

one by the total number of children

without disabilities in district one so that again

gives you 75 divided by the 925

for a suspension/expulsion rate of 8.1%.

So we have both of our rates, and in order to get the rate ratio

what we're gonna do is divide these two rates.

So we're gonna divide that 21.8 by 8.1

and what we find is that in this district

the suspension/expulsion rate for children

with disabilities is 2.69 times

that of children without disabilities.

So again the state would need to determine

a threshold for determining

when that discrepancy is gonna be found to be significant.

So again this comparison and this methodology

is all within the district.

We're not using any of the state level data for this comparison.

It's comparing children with disabilities to children

without disabilities within one district.

now we're gonna make it just a little bit more complicated

and we're going to look at B4B

which again is where we're throwing in the race/ethnicity piece.

So again this rate ratio is very,

very similar to the one that we just calculated.

What we're gonna do first however is calculate the rates

for the race/ethnic group in district one.

So what we're gonna do is we're gonna divide

the number of Hispanic Latino children

with disabilities who were suspended/expelled

by the total number of Hispanic/Latino children

with disabilities in that district.

So in this particular district

there were 10 Hispanic/Latino children

who were suspended/expelled

and there were 35 Hispanic/Latino children

with disabilities in that district.

So we get a suspension/expulsion rate of 28.6%.

Then we compare that rate to the suspension/expulsion rate

for all children

without disabilities within that same district.

So this is the exact same rate

that we just calculated in B4A

if we go back a couple of slides

you can see that this is the exact same rate

if you look at that bottom one.

We have 75 children without disabilities

who were suspended/expelled,

we have 925 total children

without disabilities

and we're gonna divide those two

and get that same rate of 8.1.

So in this district if we do that comparison we find

that we divide those rates

and we find that the suspension/expulsion rate

for Hispanic children

with disabilities is 3.5 times the suspension/expulsion rate

for all children

without disabilities in that district.

So it's important that you're comparing

in each district the suspension/expulsion rate

for each racial/ethnic group

to the suspension/expulsion rate

for all children without disabilities.

so again I know we just went through quite a bit of information

about how to calculate different rates

depending on whether you're using comparison option one

or whether you're using comparison option

two which are the comparing suspension/expulsion rate

for children with disabilities within the state

or else comparing children with disabilities to children

without disabilities within a district.

I know that we went through a lot of rates

and so we would definitely encourage you

to look at our B4

TA guide which provides a lot more information

about different methodologies

that you might use and again provides those step

by step directions

for how to calculate each one of those methods.

>> Julie, before you go on there is one question

that I could not completely answer

and it asks about OSEP's measurement table,

so that data to be used.

Does not specify out of school suspension,

rather it says suspensions and expulsions

for greater than 10 days.

Does it really have to be out of school

or can it include in school suspensions

and expulsions of greater than 10 days as well?

>> Great question, Mickey.

You're correct that the measurement table

from OSEP does not specify.

When IDC created the B4

TA guide that I keep referencing

we actually worked hand in hand

with OSEP, OGC, and OCR

and that TA guide was vetted by

all of those various offices

within the Department of Ed

and our understanding from working

with each of those offices

that it is the out of school suspension/expulsion

totally greater than 10 days.

It is not including the in school suspension/expulsion data.

You are very welcome.

I'll pause here and ask if there are any other questions

before we hit the small cell sizes and the thresholds.

If there are, again remember you're on mute

so we do ask that you put anything in the chat box.

Okay, if something does come to mind please feel free to enter that.

We will like I said try to answer

all of the questions that come in.

So let's talk a little bit about small cell sizes.

So this is part of the decision

that states have to make

when you're choosing your methodology.

So any of the calculations that we just discussed,

any of the rates that we just walked through

how to calculate can be unreliable

if the number of children included

in these analyses is small.

And so unreliable analyses caused by small cell

sized can result in districts being inappropriately identified

with having a significant discrepancy.

And the most common method

that states use to address small cell

sizes is to identify a minimum number of children

to be included in those analyses.

So this is often referred to as a minimum N size,

or a minimum cell size.

When deciding whether to implement a minimum cell size and figuring

out what that should be it's very important for states

to realize that there really is no perfect value.

Any minimum cell size definitely

has its tradeoffs and its limitations.

States need to make sure

that they're balancing the possibility

of inappropriately identifying districts

because of those small cell sizes

against the possibility of not identifying districts

because of large minimum cell sizes

that eliminate large number of districts

from the analyses completely.

So it is very much a tradeoff.

If you have too low of a minimum

cell size or choose not to use

one then you may have unreliable analyses

identifying districts that perhaps you shouldn't.

If you use too large of a minimum cell size

then you run the risk of eliminating

all of your districts right off the bat

and now actually including

those that may have issues in the analyses

so they don't even make it to that point.

All right, going to the next slide let's talk a little bit about thresholds

'cause we've alluded to them quite a bit at this point in time.

For any of the methods states

will need to set a threshold for determining

when a significant discrepancy is occurring.

So all the methodologies that we walked through

and that we talked about basically tell you

whether or not there's a discrepancy

between the different rates.

However they don't tell you whether or not that discrepancy

is considered significant.

The state needs to set a threshold for

when they consider any type of discrepancy

to be significant

meaning that it requires some type of action

by the state and by the district.

So for example if you're using a rate ratio

you need to set a rate ratio threshold

as to when that difference there,

that ratio becomes unacceptable within your state.

So states must set thresholds for both B4A and B4B

and the thresholds may be different

since they are related to the methodology.

And they must be reported

as part of the state's definition

of significant discrepancy.

So let's do a test your knowledge at the end

and then we'll revisit the chat box as well.

So a state decides

that they want to calculate a rate ratio

that within a district compares the suspension/expulsion rate

for Black or African American children

with disabilities to the suspension/expulsion rate

for Black or African American children

without disabilities in that same district.

Is this acceptable?

The answer is no, it is not acceptable.

States should compare the suspension/expulsion rate

for children with disabilities from each racial/ethnic group

to the suspension/expulsion rate

for all children

without disabilities in that same district.

If you use the district level suspension/expulsion for children

without disabilities for each racial/ethnic

group as the basis for that comparison

then that means that a different comparison rate

is being used to determine significant discrepancy

for each racial/ethnic group in that district

and the Department of education

has stated that absent a valid justification

for treating different racial/ethnic groups

differently this method is unacceptable.

Any additional questions that have come in Nancy that we need to go back to?

>> I believe I was able to answer the last one that came in.

>> Okay, good. So let's talk a little bit about the B4 cautions.

So there are some important points to remember

about calculating significant discrepancy

for indicator B4B in particular.

So first, states cannot use the methods

that they use for B9, B10,

and significant disproportionality

for the significant discrepancy calculation

for B4B.

The B9, B10 calculations

in significant disproportionality calculation

do not use either of the comparison options

that are required by indicator B4B.

So states should not use

or calculate a risk ratio

within each district --I'm sorry,

states should not calculate a risk ratio

within each district that compares the suspension/expulsion rate

for children with disabilities from one racial/ethnic

group to the risk for children

with disabilities from all other racial/ethnic groups.

So again that is not allowed.

And let's walk through an example

as to why those methods aren't appropriate.

So at the bottom of this slide you will see a formula.

And this is a formula that you might use

if you were calculating a risk ratio

let's say for significant disproportionality

looking at a discipline category.

Here within the district

we compare the percentage of children

with disabilities from a racial/ethnic group

who are suspended/expelled

to the percentage of all other children

with disabilities

who are suspended/expelled in that same district.

So this risk ratio does not compare among districts

within the state

and that's because you're comparing within the district.

So it doesn't meet that first comparison option

that we discussed.

It doesn't compare among districts within the state.

It also does not compare children

with disabilities to children

without disabilities which is that second comparison option.

Instead it compared children

with disabilities to children

with disabilities

and therefor for those reasons

because it doesn't use either

of the different comparison options

this method is inappropriate

and unacceptable for B4B.

So again, please do not use that method.

It's also important to note that states cannot use

the significant discrepancy

analyses that they used for B4B

to meet the discipline analysis requirements

of significant disproportionality.

The rate ratios that are calculated for B4B

are not acceptable for significant

disproportionality

which requires states to use risk ratios

and alternate risk ratios.

In addition for significant disproportionality states

must analyze five different discipline categories

to make sure they're getting at incidence,

type, and duration.

For B4B states are only analyzing data

for out of school suspension/expulsions

totaling greater than 10 days.

So just keep in mind

that significant discrepancy in discipline

and significant disproportionality

are very different requirements in IDEA

and require very different calculations

and different data sources.

So another quick test your knowledge, you cannot use the same calculations

for B4B

that you use for B9

and B10, true or false?

And that one is absolutely true,

you should not calculate risk ratios for B4B.

All right, Nancy I think we're down to about 10 minutes

so I'm gonna pass this back

to you for a summary

and make sure that we show

where they can get all those resources

that we've been talking about.

>> Absolutely, and as we do that we also want to encourage you to be

adding any final questions into the chat box

that you may have as we go through this.

So as a quick summary,

B4A is a results indicator

and as a state you get to set the target.

B4B is a compliance indicator

and the target must be 0.

States in developing their definition

of significant discrepancy

can choose the comparison option,

the calculation methodology,

the threshold,

and of course minimum cell size requirements.

And again these do not have to be the same

for A and for B,

they can vary by the indicator as well.

Your data that you're gonna use is children ages

three through 21 with disabilities

and you'll need all seven racial and ethnic groups

to conduct the analysis for 4B.

You cannot as Julie clearly talked to us about,

use the results of the B4B

analysis to meet the significant disproportionality requirements

and likewise what you're gonna use

for significant disproportionality

and discipline

does not meet the requirements

of what you're gonna use for B4B.

She talked about the different comparisons

and how they do not meet the requirements.

So I want to tell you about a few of these resources

and as I think you know we're recording this

and it will all be available with the Power Point

and once the recording is final you can get to these links

but first of all

OSEP has some resources to support you,

and those are found in the SPPAPR resources

tab on the GRADS360

such as the measurement table,

the related requirements table,

and the indicator analyses document.

So I think we referred to all of those

throughout this presentation.

So there's your first set of resources.

IDC has resources

and Julie referred multiple times

to the indicator B4

technical assistance guide and so that one is there.

You can always find that

on the IDA resource library,

and the other one to think about

is there's a new document

called equity Requirements in IDEA

which really compares

all the different IDEA equity requirements.

It compares B4 to 9 and 10,

to significant disproportionality at a high level,

but it compares across many factors

like what data do you use,

what are the requirements

for a district if they're identified?

What are the requirements for the state

if they identify?

And others.

Methodology, all of that is included.

So it may be a helpful resource as well.

All of the IDC resources

of course can be found at the resource

library IDEAdata. org/resourcelibrary.

We have a number of documents

related to equity issues

that could be helpful.

So we have a couple of minutes, maybe about five minutes actually.

If there's further questions or discussions

that you would like to have,

if there is somebody that would rather voice their question

if you use the raise your hand symbol

above the chat box

then we can unmute somebody if you raise your hand.

Otherwise Julie do we have new questions

in the chat box?

>> We had just a couple but I believe they've been addressed.

>> Okay, all right any further questions, comments?

I won't ask you to acknowledge this but those of you

that may have been working on this for a while,

I'm wondering

if some of the information made you think

oh I need to go back and re-look at how we do this?

There's always so many nuances to all of these equity requirements

that it's always important I think to go back

and think about your process and your procedures.

And make sure you're doing them right.

Not seeing anything come in I'm gonna go

to the almost last slide

and tell you

that certainly there's help for you from IDC.

You certainly can contact your state liaison.

If you don't know who your state liaison

is then you can find that out by looking

at the technical assistance tab

on IDA data webpage

and certainly Julie

and I are happy to answer your questions

as well and our emails are there.

you will be getting an evaluation after this webinar

because you so kindly registered

and we now have your email

so you will be receiving an evaluation

and we'd really appreciate it

if you would take a couple of minutes

and do that evaluation.

It will help us improve.

This was the first of multiple webinars

coming up on back to basics,

looking at many of the SPPAPR indicators.

And with that Julie, do you have anything else that you want to add?

>> Just a reminder that if you did find this particular webinar helpful

to get back to the basics on B4 please

do look next month

and register for the next webinar

which is going to be covering

another equity requirement of IDEA

and focusing on indicators B9

and B10 for the SPPAPR.

So definitely encourage everyone to listen to that one as well.

>> Thanks everybody, have a great afternoon.

>> Thank you so much everybody.

For more infomation >> Part B Suspension and Expulsion—What You Need to Know About Indicator B4 - Duration: 55:20.

-------------------------------------------

Are You Truly In A Bad Mood Or Is It A Spirit Who Won't Leave - Duration: 7:57.

Are

You Truly In A Bad Mood Or Is It A Spirit Who Won�t Leave You Alone?

Why?

They feel much more comfortable being in a physical body because that�s what they know.

They do not and cannot (without permission) take over the body.

Their subconscious �programming� does influence the living person�s body and mind.

If the person whose body in which a spirit attachment is in is sensitive to energy, that

person will feel and react to the spirit attachments thoughts and emotions, not realizing they

belong to someone else.

Spirit attachments are �Earth Bound� meaning they are stuck in a limbo state even if they

don�t realize it.

They are also stuck in the emotions and mind set ( Programmed beliefs) they had while embodied.

Their mind set and emotions, as well as the aliments that affected them before passing

away will affect the body they are attached to.

Sometimes it starts with anxiety or thoughts of impending doom, other times it starts with

physical symptoms for aliments that the body does not have.

Which leaves the doctor and the patient frustrated, confused or even misdiagnosed.

If you have an attachment, using the Pendulum or Muscle testing will be very inaccurate,

as the thoughts of this person will affect the testing.

You might be able to discover whether you have one or more spirit attachments with the

following: Test with the Pendulum these statements ( but substitute it with your name): �Kim�s

Higher Self knows Kim to have a spirit attachment.� �Kim�s body has more than one spirit in

it.� �Kim�s energy field has more than one spirit in it.�

If you get a �yes� to any of these, remain calm.

It is like having a roommate.

Subconsciously, you agreed to this roommate or he/she would not be with you.

All this person needs to know is he/she has better choices.

In a quiet moment in your home point out these choices to the spirit(s) with you:

Close your eyes, breathe in and out to relax, then in your mind or out loud say �I am

now my I am� and imagine that you are inside of an empty white room located in the center

of your chest.

You can test �I am my I am� and �I am in my heart space� and if you get yes for

both all you have to do is say �I am my I am and I command all beings that are not

�Kim� get into this room now!�

In the ceiling of the while room there is a huge spot light as well as a huge sprinkler

like the ones that go off when there is a fire in the room.

As the room fills with people who are not �Kim� you may see them as people or just

energy orbs or mist, it really does not matter how you see them because as soon as something

appears either the sprinkler sprays them and they dissolve or the spot light turns on and

they are vacuumed up into it like the old �beam me up scotty� on star trek.

This is the quantum way of doing things and is the best and most effective as well as

easy way to do things.

If you would like to do the old fashion way and communicate with the hitchhikers and find

out who they are and why they are there you can surely do so.

In this case say �I am my I am and I command that any soul who has been in my body that

is not me step forward now� then imagine on the back wall of the room a door.

The door will open and through it will come one being at a time.

Those who have been there the longest will come first or you can say �who ever is making

me feel so depressed come forward now� for example.

Once they come forward you can ask who they are, how long they have been there, why they

are there.

They may be confused, they may tell you that you are the dead one that you are actually

in their body, I speak from experience on that one!

Next tell them:

1)Look for a Light.

It is a Light brighter than the sun, except you can look directly into it.

You will feel it welcoming you and drawing you to it.

There is no judgment or punishment in the light.

You can suggest he/she ask for the perfect guide from the light to come escort them and

show them the way.

Reassure the spirit no one ever has to stay in the light, but it is in the light he/she

will be shown how to attain what he/she desires, including having exactly the kind of body

they want if they want to be in the body again.

Or, if they feel they did not finish up the life they wanted as they desired or still

feel things are missing from that life they will be helped to explore their unfulfilled

desires.

Then say �Goodbye, I know you are safe now�.

2)Then call in the next soul and do the same thing all over again.

This is what I use to clear beings and I had times where it took me 4 hours to clear all

the beings from clients or myself.

The quantum option I gave first is clearly the fastest and easiest and I programmed it

to be instant and that God�s light keep you and the spirits protected from fallen

beings or other harmful energies in the universe.

When you are done with either technique say in your head or out loud �I am my I am and

I now ask my Higher Self to keep me and my home surrounded with the divine light of the

holy spirit and Christ light and that my higher self keep all spirits who do not belong here

away.�

Every time before using the pendulum (or other muscle testing), begin with this statement:

�My Higher Self knows me to be free of spirit attachments.� If no, you know what to do.

If yes, you might also test this: �My Higher Self knows me to have been free of spirit

attachments for the past week� just to be sure you are normally spirit attachment free.

A statement that can be used with the snowglobe technique after connecting to the snowglobe,

grounding, and clearing using the light from above you can say �I am alone in my snowglobe�

if you test �yes� you are good if you test �no� say �I am more than one�

, �I am more than 2�, �I am more than 3, or 10, or 100, etc�� once you know

how many you are say �I am my I am and I am alone in my snowglobe� imagine that you

are in the center of your chest, inside the heart area, and then say Zero.

Imagine that a huge white zero comes from above you, drops down into your snowglobe,

down through your body, and out your feet into the center of the earth.

Then test again �I am alone in my snowglobe� and you should be good.

If not do it again until you are clear but the first time should work the only reason

it would not is if you are not truly aligned with your heart or your I am self.

For more infomation >> Are You Truly In A Bad Mood Or Is It A Spirit Who Won't Leave - Duration: 7:57.

-------------------------------------------

Memorial Patient Champion Joaquin Duran will make you smile - Duration: 3:04.

EARN OR EVERY YEAR THE-

-EVERY YEAR THE MEMORIAL

TOURNAMENT SELL PRATE BATHES

PATIENTS.

AND THIS YEAR EIGHT KIDS AND

THEIR FAMILIES GET THE FULL VIP

EXPERIENCE.

THIS MORNING WE INTRODUCE YOU

ONE OF THE PATIENT CHAMPIONS

WHO IS EXCITED.

Reporter: HE HAS A SMILE TO

LIGHT UP A ROOM AND ENOUGH

ENERGY TO FILL IT UP.

WITHOUT FOING HIS HISTORY,

YOU WOULD--KNOWING HIS HISTORY,

YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THAT HARD

ROAD.

Reporter: HE WAS BORN WITH

CLEFT LIP AND PAL LET.

ONLY ONE IN 700 BABIES ARE BORN

WITH THE CONDITION.

MY THUMB IS WIDE, I COULD

PASS IT THROUGH THIS NOSTRIL

AND NOT TOUCH EITHER SIDE.

I MEAN FROM HIS SINUS,

OBVIOUSLY, CLEAR DOWN TO HIS

LIP.

AND NO GUMS OR ANYTHING NORM

FORMED IN--ANYTHING FORMED IN

THAT AREA.

IF HE WAS NOT SICK, HE WAS

HAVING SURGERY.

AND HE WAS GOING TO BE OKAY.

Reporter: HIS FIRST SURGERY

TO CLOSE HIS LIP WAS AT JUST

FOUR MONTHS OLD, SINCE THEN, WE

HAS ADD 13 MORE SURGERIES,

INCLUDING GETTING A BONE GRAFT

JUST FOUR WEEKS AGO.

WHICH IS TO BUILD UP WHERE

THERE WAS NO BONE IN HIS AREA

HERE UNDER HIS GUM AND IT IS

GOING TO HELP HIM, OH, ADJUST

TO TEETH AS IT GROWS.

AND THEN SURGERIES ONCE HE IS

DONE GROWING.

UP TO THIS POINT, HE IS TAKING

IT AWESOME.

HE IS PROUD OF HIS BATTLE

SCARS.

I HAVE CHANGED A LOT, LIKE

BODY CHANGES AS YOU GROW, AND

YOUR BODY CHANGES LIKE, YOU CAN

SOMETIMES KEEP THE SCARS, OR

THEY GO AWAY.

IN AND OUT TWICE.

Reporter: HE LOVES TO READ

AND LOVES TO BUILD THINGS.

AND LATELY, EVEN TAKEN UP THE

SPORT OF LACROSSE, AND AS FOR

HIS THOUGHTS ON BEING A PATIENT

CHAMPION--

IT IS GREAT.

Reporter: WHY IS THAT?

WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT IT?

I GET TO REPRESENT THINK

HOSPITAL, I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR

14 SURGERIES.

HE IS NOT FULLY IN THE CLEAR

YET, BUT THE HOPE THAT IS ANY

FUTURE SURGERIES WILL BE

COSMETIC.

AS FOR HIS BIG DAY TOMORROW HE

WILL GET TO MEET MOST OF THE

BEST GOLFERS IN THE WORLD.

I DO NOT GET A MILK SHAKE.

NO, YOU DO NOT.

AND I WILL PUT THIS ON

FACEBOOK, WE GOT TO LOVE ABOUT

HIS BROTHERS GOING TO SCHOOL

AND THE RIVALRY WAS BROUGHT UP.

HE CALLED YOU MICHIGAN.

YES, AND CALLED THEM OHIO

STATE.

I SAID NO, NO, IT IS THE

OTHER WAY AROUND.

HE SAID NO, NO, YOU DO THE

MATH.

[ LAUGHTER ]

For more infomation >> Memorial Patient Champion Joaquin Duran will make you smile - Duration: 3:04.

-------------------------------------------

Psycho Cybernetics By Maxwell Maltz: Book Review - Duration: 6:11.

how's it going everyone my name is

Dono and this is how to happy in this

video we're going to be doing a book

review of the book psycho cybernetics

this book is best for those who can weed

through a little bit of the woowoo stuff

to look through a book on

self-confidence and how that affects all

of the outcomes in your life

the difficulty to digest is fairly

easy though there is a little bit of

confusion with some of the woowoo stuff

and some of the concepts that are a

little bit outdated this book is a

little bit older so some of the stuff is

not as current as it could be and can

lead to some confusion psycho

cybernetics is full of a lot of

different frameworks and ideas mostly

related to how self-esteem and

self-image have outcomes on your life

now there's a bunch of other stuff built

in there but Maltz mostly focuses on

self-esteem so he starts out by talking

about how he was a plastic surgeon and

he saw that a lot of the times changes

in his patients came through their

beliefs not their actual physical

changes right so if someone changed

their physical appearance and then

believed that they were beautiful they

started acting that way but if they

still believed that they were disfigured

then they would continue to act in that

way and that would have really big

impacts in the way that they live their

life as well as what they accomplished

he then goes on to talk quite a bit

about visualization as a tool to improve

in a lot of different ways and this is

because he was originally involved with

some hypnosis type stuff or at least he

talks about some hypnosis type stuff and

says that those beliefs are so strong

that they come across as true so

he recommends that you try doing things

like visualizations where you sit close

your eyes clear your mind think about

what you want to happen

and how that really helps increase your

effectiveness and happiness depending on

what you're working on

Maltz then goes on to talk about how

rational thought can really help keep

you in balance and guide you forward so

he says to question thoughts as they

come up so that you can ask

yourself

is this rational does this make sense

and as you question a lot of these

thoughts you can dispel the beliefs that

go along with them once you compare them

to the bigger overall picture of life

Maltz also talks about the importance of

relaxation so that if you're just way

too focused on one problem and driving

all your energy into it you might have a

really hard time solving it but as soon

as you go you know take a nap or focus

on something else for a little bit your

mind can kind of crank away at it so

that when you come back you'll have the

answers that you were looking for now

there's a big chunk of the book that

also talks about what you can control

and focusing on that so the example that

he uses is basically the telephone

ringing right so a stimulus comes in

that's the phone ringing and you can sit

there and choose whether or not you want

to answer it right yes there is an

action that the phone is calling you to

do but you are ultimately in control of

how you react then he goes on to say

that you can expand this to a great

range of incoming stimuli right

something happens but you always have

the choice to react to it and he says if

it helps you know you can think about

that phone calling right

you have the choice of what you're going

to do so as you expand that belief and

build up your habits and you can realize

as any stimulus happens you have the

choice to make the reaction that you

want he then goes over some frameworks

for success and for failure and

different attributes of what cause

those two things and wraps up by talking

about setting goals and how a lot of

people as they get into their older age

have as much life as they've set goals

for so he just talks about how when

you're really driven to a purpose

then you have more energy and more life

to get things done but if you don't set

goals and you're not working towards

anything then the life and energy is

kind of just sucked out of you so

there's quite a bit of information and a

bunch of different frameworks within

this book but the heaviest thing that

Maltz hits is building of your

self-esteem and self-image and getting

the tools to really feel good about

yourself and have these beliefs that

lead you to more success let's move on

to the other considerations one thing if

you end up reading this book to think

about is there's several references to god

under a Christian type of theology

they're not essential to the book but

that's something just to be aware of you

can still get a lot of you know valuable

information about self-esteem and

whatnot without really digging into that

stuff but that's just a point to bring

up that that stuff is in there and

another thing is as with a lot of books

in this kind of genre and that are a

little bit older there's a lot of woowoo

stuff so as always anything that doesn't

really resonate with you just naturally

that you can't quite understand that

you're skeptical of do a little bit more

research because a lot of these

principles or at least the mechanics

behind the principles have been

explained in a different way through

psychology and just over time let's move

on to the applicable content and

exercises this book talks heavily about

creating a positive and empowered

self-image what activities do you

participate in which make you feel more

powerful how can you leverage those

events to create more positivity in your

life as a whole visualization and

relaxation are seen here as key creators

of self-esteem and happiness if you'd

like to try these techniques set

yourself a timer for five minutes during

that time close your eyes and either

focus on your breathing or something

you'd like to accomplish see how that

makes you feel so all-in-all there's a

lot of good value to be gotten out of

psycho-cybernetics you might have to dig

around a little bit and kind of parse

out what Maltz is saying but there is

some good stuff in there that's all I've

got for this video so as always if you

have any question comments topics

you want me to cover throw them down in the

box below and I will see you next time

you can check out more content at how to

happy.com also don't forget to

subscribe so you can stay up to date on

the videos we've also got a Twitter

Instagram and Facebook that you can

check out reflect take action and enjoy

life see you next time

For more infomation >> Psycho Cybernetics By Maxwell Maltz: Book Review - Duration: 6:11.

-------------------------------------------

Kisna Jungle Adventures - Jungle adventures mylasandra - Duration: 5:23.

Kisna Jungle Adventures

Jungle adventures mylasandra

For more infomation >> Kisna Jungle Adventures - Jungle adventures mylasandra - Duration: 5:23.

-------------------------------------------

US-Oil Corp Review - Another SCAM? - Duration: 1:48.

what if I could show you a way to start US-Oil Corp Review

generating income online within the next

6 to 12 weeks and then what if I could

show you how to scale that income to a

four five even six figure income within

the next six to twelve months you see it

might sound like too good to be true

bearing in mind that this kind of

business can be run from anywhere in the

world as long as you have an internet

connection and a laptop or a computer so

when I speak to people about what it is

that I do in the kind of lifestyle that

I live most people think that kind of

lifestyle is safe for celebrities or the

rich and famous but let me tell you just

for nearly five years ago I was stuck in

a job working 70 hours a week trading

all of my time for money and I was in

debt so that is why I turned to the US-Oil Corp Review

internet to find a better way and I

couldn't be more pleased with the

results you think I'd be lying if I said

it was plain sailing and I got started

and everything turned out to be amazing

and I started living the stream

lifestyle the truth is I had to learn

and I had to learn fast because of the

situation I was in but what I discovered

was a system and a formula that enabled

me to quit my job within six months and US-Oil Corp Review

add a multiple six-figure income my

first year and that system I'm going to

be revealing to you today so what you

need to do is enter your name and email

address like I said on this page and we

will rush this information straight to

your inbox thanks very much for coming

through to check out this video and I

cannot wait to see you on the other side

you US-Oil Corp Review

For more infomation >> US-Oil Corp Review - Another SCAM? - Duration: 1:48.

-------------------------------------------

RedFox AnyDVD HD 8.1.4.0 Crack - Final version download - Duration: 1:45.

redfox anydvd hd 8.1.4.0

redfox anydvd hd 8.1.4.0 crack

redfox anydvd hd 8.1.4.0 key

redfox anydvd hd 8.1.4.0 patch

redfox anydvd hd 8.1.4.0 full

redfox anydvd hd 8.1.4.0 download

For more infomation >> RedFox AnyDVD HD 8.1.4.0 Crack - Final version download - Duration: 1:45.

-------------------------------------------

The Unique Seat Total Lounging System For 2 - Duration: 9:35.

For more infomation >> The Unique Seat Total Lounging System For 2 - Duration: 9:35.

-------------------------------------------

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN VOWS TO GIVE FREE MEALS FOR ANYONE IN UNIFORM. DO YOU SUPPORT THIS? - Duration: 4:17.

t has long been an unwritten policy of fast food franchises and convenience stores to

offer perks to first responders, such as free coffee or lunches.

It is good public relations and has the added benefit of fostering a good relationship with

law enforcement and other emergency services personnel, should these businesses ever need

to avail themselves of services.

It certainly is not "quid pro quo," but it is smart.

One Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in Ohio has taken that time honored policy, and made

it public.

They recently put up a sign on their entry doors declaring that cops eat free every day.

And the response they have gotten will blow your mind.

In light of the current public debate about law enforcement and their communities, a KFC

franchise manager in Gallipolis, Ohio has decided to make a very public statement in

support of area police officers.

The restaurant has placed a hand written sign on their front door that reads:

"All uniformed police officers eat free everyday."

The sign has been seen by many as an indirect refutation of the Black Lives Matter organization,

as some see any critique of law enforcement as a direct assault on law and order.

Police supporters have countered the BLM with their own "Blue Lives Matter" and "All

Lives Matter" memes, suggesting that their is somehow an increased level of peril for

officers in recent times.

This issue has been in the public arena for a few years now.

Some reasons for the increased public concern for First Responder safety may include a general

focus on gun-related crime, attention being brought to officer-related shootings by the

Black Lives Matter movement, and a quantifiable, but slight, spike in violence against law

enforcement officers this year.

Statistically, however, violence against law enforcement is down from an historic high

during the mid-1970's, when the average number of police officers killed in the line

of duty reached around 280 a year.

In fact, current numbers are even down significantly from 2010, when more than 175 officers were

killed in action, including 61 gun-related fatalities and 6 assaults.

And, According to the FBI, there was an almost 20 percent decrease in the number of felonious

deaths of police officers between 2014 to 215.

The sign has been photographed and shared on Facebook over six thousand times, with

another ten thousand "likes."

A number of people on both sides have commented on the restaurant's policy, saying things

like:

"That's wonderful.

I feel all restaurants should do this for the men and women who protect us,

even the men and women in the armed forces.

God bless all who keep us safe."- Sandra Lambrix

"Outstanding!

Hurrah for KFC!"- Steve Wicker

"The Colonel would be proud.

Keep up the good work"- Phillip Sebald

"Police are not allowed to accept gratuities.

It is and can be viewed as a bribe or a pay-to-play scheme.

Look it up yourself."- Robert

"Awesome job you guys somebody's finally decided to stick up for the police force but

I have to say most people do…"- Patsy Burne

"I wish veterans could get that respect."- Debra Johnson

How do you feel about the sign?

Did you know that most fast food restaurants and convenience stores have been doing his

for decades?

Share your thoughts with us here.

Subscribe to our channel for more : http://bit.ly/2lB6QeW

For more infomation >> KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN VOWS TO GIVE FREE MEALS FOR ANYONE IN UNIFORM. DO YOU SUPPORT THIS? - Duration: 4:17.

-------------------------------------------

Dad Reacting To My Phone Bill // Blank Space Parody - Duration: 5:15.

Hey Dad.

Can you just pay this bill.

I am not bloody going to do that.

why?

you always spending money on stupid things

but when it comes to phone bill

you bloody have no money. what the bloody hell? hun.

Dad please.

I can't bloody afford.

Bloody every time.

Haann Ju work yourself and pay your bloody phone

bill.

Dad!

Please only this time Ok.

Ok. But this last bloody time. last time.

How much is it?

Just two thousand six hundred thirteen only How much??

Just 2613 only Just Only

Ju listen to me ok open your ears like this ok

So finally, are you going to pay it or not?

This time RiRi ok!

Ju bloody do some work work work work work work

No!

Stop!