Beyond the Audit: Discovering Opportunities for Program

Beyond the Audit: Discovering Opportunities for Program Improvement

Dr. Lee Funk, Special Education Director School Innovations & Achievement

Susan Kelch, Socorro ISD, Special Education Director, Retired

Former President of TCASE

Proprietary information. Not for copy or distribution.

1

Objectives of Presentation

Review and discuss factors that contribute to a thorough evaluation of special education programs in order to guide decisions for program enhancements.

Discuss dominate trends throughout the nation to identify areas where informed actions can improve programs for better outcomes for students with disabilities.


2

Going Beyond the Audit

What does that mean?

How is it different?

Why bother?

What matters?

How can it benefit my district in the short term?

How can it benefit my district in the long term?

How can we sustain the benefits?

What should we look for in a partnership?


3

How is it Different from an Audit?

An Audit

• Driven by $ and/or compliance

• Unilateral

• Elemental/Discrete

• Attention to errors

• Results in “corrective actions”

4

An Evaluation of Potential

• Driven by essential outcomes

• Collaborative

• Systemic

• Attention to possibilities

• Results in a long-term plan


Why bother? Special Education Cost Drivers

5

Average SE Student: 1.9 x GE

Early Intervention: 1.9 x years

Young Adult Transition: 1.9 x years

Each DIS: +11.68%

Transportation: $2,500 - $6,000

Private Placements & NPA: >4x

Litigation Sources: Center for Special Education Finance; AIR, 2004 SI&A, 2010 – 2011 National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education


Why bother? Weighted Formula ≠ Additional Costs

Suppose:

Cost of Average SE Pupil: $5,000 x 1.9 = $9,500

Average Funding:

$5,000 x 3.05 (Average weight) x .125 (approximate hrs for one pupil) = 1,906.25

+ $5,000 = $6,906.25

Difference x 100 SWD = $259,375

6


Nationwide Increase in Special Education Enrollment – All SWD

7

Why bother?

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education


Why bother? Special Education Results

8

The good news? Guess which state has the lowest rates:

Identification rates vary nationwide from 18.4% to 8.9%! Demonstrating wide variances in:

• Pre-referral practices • Eligibility determination

8.9%!

The bad news? Average annual growth in per-pupil spending in SE in Texas from 1996-2005 : 4%!

Sources: Wider, Ben; “State Special Education Rates Vary Widely;” Stateline: The Daily News Service of the Pew Charitable Trusts, January 24, 2012. Diego, Juan & Richard Rothstein; “Where has the Money Been Going? A Preliminary Update;” EPI Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute, October 28, 2010.


Why bother? Special Education Results More Texas News…

9

SLD as % of SWD SLD as % of all students

Source: Scull, Janie & Amber M. Winkler; Shifting Trends in Special Education; Thomas Fordham Institute, May 2011



10

Low Rates of Transfer from SE to GE: <15%

Low Performance Rates: Overall lag in spite of

accommodations and modifications

Low Graduation/Completion Rates: 65% nationally

Post Secondary Results for YAWD vs. General

Sources: National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Department of Education. Taylor, Linda; LewRockwell.com, 2011. Cobb, B.S; Effective Interventions in Dropout Prevention: A Research Synthesis – The Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Interventions on Dropout for Youth with Disabilities. The National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities, 2005.



11

Employment outside of home at time of interviews (YAWD vs. General ) Source: U.S. Department of Ed, NCSER, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 2009 Wave 5 Interviews

60.2% 66.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

YAWD General

Current Residential independence and semi-independence (YAWD vs. General ) Source: U.S. Department of Ed, NCSER, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 2009 Wave 5 Interviews

46.4%

60.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

SWD GeneralProprietary information. Not for copy or distribution.


12

Financial management tools: (YAWD vs. General) Source: U.S. Department of Ed, NCSER, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 2009 Wave 5 Interviews

59.0% 58.7%

41.4%

63.3%

73.9%

61.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Savings Checking Credit Card

Postsecondary school enrollment and employment: (YAWD vs. General) Source: U.S. Department of Ed, NCSER, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 2009 Wave 5 Interviews

28.3%

66.1%

5.6%

Enrollment Employment Outside of Home None

General

15.1%

60.2%

24.7%

Enrollment Employment Outside of Home None

YAWD



13

Hourly wages (YAWD vs. General) Source: U.S. Department of Ed, NCSER, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 2009 Wave 5 Interviews & Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Round 9 Questionnaire, 2005

Health benefits (YAWD vs. General) Source: U.S. Department of Ed, NCSER, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 2009 Wave 5 Interviews & Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Round 9 Questionnaire, 2005

$10.40

$11.40

$9.80

$10.00

$10.20

$10.40

$10.60

$10.80

$11.00

$11.20

$11.40

$11.60

YAWD General

47.7%

55.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

YAWD GeneralProprietary information. Not for copy or distribution.


14

Criminal justice system involvement (YAWD vs. General) Source: U.S. Department of Ed, NCSER, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), 2009 Wave 5 Interviews

50.2%

32.3%

16.7% 17.8%

53.1%

21.4%

12.3% 8.2%

2.9%

18.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Stopped for anoffense other than

traffic violation

Arrested Jailed Probation/Parole Any of theseexperiences

YAWD General


What Matters?

• An Audit: “Since resources are limited, we will show you how can you reduce services and/or personnel to save $!”

• A Collaborative Evaluation: “How can we help you target limited resources to increase collaboration and inclusion so that SWD will be more successful both in school and later in life?”

15


What Matters?

Thorough Operations

Analysis

Service Delivery Options

Reallocation of Resources

Provides Complaint, Actionable

Recommendations


16

17

What Matters?

Collaboration:

Focus on the future not the past – solutions, not problems

Gets all stakeholders engaged

Recommendations derived through a participatory process Results in a commitment to action

Ongoing data analysis providing continued assistance


District

Subject Matter Expert

Categorical Expertise

Experienced Data

Analysts

A Product Manager

Publications Editor

Resource Coordinator Expertise in

State Politics and Legislation

Fiscal Expertise

18

What Matters?


What Matters? Leveraging Your

19

Flexibility with $$$

Program Improvement

Increased Effectiveness

Increased

Efficiency


What Matters? Leveraging Your

Use short-term $ for long-term enhancements!

20

Analyze current conditions

Develop a plan of action with implementation strategies


21

Assess your unique program needs

Identify practices contributing to low academic achievement

Evaluate practice elements contributing toward strengths and deficiencies

Determine savings and sources for increased revenue

How will it benefit my district in the short term?


22

Also:

Deliver compliant, actionable recommendations allowable under MOE

Provide a thorough analysis – program & data driven

Include strategies to make Least Restrictive Environment a reality

Present practical approaches to manage Response to Intervention



Finding: Placements


Source: PEIMS information as of April 2012

SLI: p = <0.0001

13.00%

7.80% 6.90%

44.90%

15.20%

7.30%

13.62%

5.41% 2.88%

44.91%

22.50%

6.54%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Other HealthImpairment

IntellectualDisability

EmotionalDisturbance

LearningDisability

SpeechImpairment

Autism

Pe

rce

nt

of

SWD

s

Disability

State

District


23

24

Sample Recommendation: Establish consistency for the identification of students needing speech and language service: Specifically, use protocols, checklists, and procedures as aides in determining eligibility. A severity rating scale may be employed to help substantiate eligibility and dismissal criteria. A sample of a severity rating scale and the general criteria for entry and dismissal are delineated in the ASHA guidelines, and more specific practices for dismissal from services are available through the ASHA Web site at www.asha.org.



25

How will it benefit my district in the long term?

26%

-4%

25%

-10%

35%

44%

11%

34%

15%

40%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Feeder A Feeder B Feeder C Feeder D Feeder E

Ch

ange

in P

erc

en

t M

et

Stan

dar

d

fro

m 2

00

6 -

20

11

Feeder Pattern

Special Education Reading/ELA

Special Education Math

Figure: 5-Year Average Proficiency Increase/Decrease by Feeder Pattern Data Source: Texas Department of Education


26

Sample Recommendation: Target schools: To raise overall achievement levels of those pupils designated as disabled, efforts should be directed to those schools below the district average, 16 schools for ELA and 15 schools for math. This approach could be three-fold:

1. Ensuring the special education curriculum is aligned with the general education curriculum with particular attention given to the “core” or essential learning outcomes.

2. Identifying particular students in special programs who are underperforming in English-language arts and/or math for additional remedial instruction.

3. Reviewing IEPs of the lowest performing SWD to ensure those eligible for the STAAR Modified participate in that set of examinations, rather than the STAAR.



27

Speech Therapy, 251 students,

65.5%

Audiological Service, 12

students, 3.1%

Orient Mobility, 39 students,

10.2%

Physical Therapy, 1 student, 0.3%

Psychological, 25 students, 6.5%

Assistive Tech, 55 students,

14.4%


National statistics: According to Hallahan and Kaufman, “It is probably reasonable to estimate that about 10 to 15 percent of preschool children…have speech disorders; about 2 to 3 percent of preschoolers…have language disorders.” (Exceptional Learners, 10th Edition; Pearson; 2006)




28

Addresses crucial programmatic questions

Are our pre-referral practices resulting in strategic interventions?

Are we using staff as efficiently and effectively as possible?

Why are ancillary services increasing faster than special education enrollment?

Are we maximizing exposure to the core curriculum?

What is the extent of overlapping services?

How are we managing transitions?

What are our trends in student performance?

29



Using multiple years of district data:

Year-over-year comparison

Reviewing your progress toward meeting compliance with federal, state, and district benchmarks

Providing you with practical ways to keep pace as benchmarks tighten

30



By collaborating with the resource agency to:

oAnalyze Data • Taking the findings from the initial report

and digging deeper

o Identify areas for on-going improvement • Including student achievement and behavior supports

oBuild an Infrastructure for change • Based on District/Campus Goals

31



32

Trend Analysis – Make decisions based on scrupulous analysis of evidence and intensive evaluation.

Goal Setting – Establish measureable objectives for program improvement then adjust and adapt as new information is attained.

Policy Development – Through an alliance, institutionalize reforms to promote optimal learning on a continuing basis.

Resource Development – Build a bank of reference materials, instructional tools, and local expertise.

Strategic Planning – Work together to build campus-specific intervention strategies, research-based teaching practices, and sensible/defensible districtwide procedures.



33

A reduction in 1% in SLP's caseloads may lead to a savings of $20,737 based on estimated 2010-11 staffing costs of SLPs and caseloads.



34

A reduction in 1% of SWD may lead to a savings of $220,072 based on the projected cost per pupil during the 2011-12 school year.



Signals - What to look for

Avoid purely fiscal audits

Arrange for more than a compliance review

Essential elements:

Program driven

Every aspect of Special Education

An agency with multiple resources

Data analysis

Special Education expertise

Integrative expertise

35


Signals - More things to look for

Essential elements

Collaborative You assist in determining priorities

You verify the findings

You help determine if the recommendations are reasonable

In line with MOE requirements

Specifics that are actionable

Implementation Plan option Trend analysis

Ongoing support & advice

36


Thank You!

Dr. Lee Funk, Director of Special Education School Innovations & Achievement

916.669.5439 [email protected]

Susan Kelch

915.241.3150 [email protected]

37


Documents

Beyond the Audit: Discovering Opportunities for Program