Futures Education Audit

8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit

1/24

ffi

LANESBORSUGH ELEMTNTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT

AN

EDUCATION

SERVICES

ANALYSIS

CONT}UCTED

BY:

ERrrv

EDWARDST ED.D. CCC/S-LP

MTCHAEL NETMAN,

PH.D,

CCClS.LP

SfiANNA

DELPRETa

M.A.

CCCIS-LP

Re

sp ectfully

S

u b

m

itted

:

March

2015

i,,,,lic$h(ire(igh

ilir..n*nii:r-v

Sr:h0i;l

0isiiic'"

Hdnci.lti':lnal

5*rvicr:s

Analysis

ii)?01ii

itrt:ri::i fliiiica :ititt

llPage


2/24

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

TNTR$T}TI{:?$SN

Executive

Process

Summary..

.........,.......,3

Glossary

of

Abbreviations..........

.............3

Glossary

of

Terms....

..............4

Acknowle

dg

e

me nts..,...

...,,,.........,.......

4

Document

Organizotion.,,....,.,......

...,.,,...4

*R$ANTUA?I$N,

TJLTMATS,

AND CULTURE

Overview...

Findings.....

Re comme

ndations

............

STAPFTNS

Findings,....

.............73

Recommendations

...............75

S${"}RCHS

&N$

RfrS${JRCHS.."..".

.""""...".."...."."."}7

AppHs1sicfis".".........."

....".."......"."".x*

krrcsht.;t'ottgir

ilr:m*nia:

y

Slht>iil

ilisliitl liclur;:litll-:ai

S*rvir:r:s

ilnai- sis-

6;2i)

1 5 i:r:ti.r

res

t

Juc;i

lirirt

2lPage


3/24

T*--**-*^-*----'

I

rxrcunvE

PRocEss

SUMMARY

i

The leadership

of the

Lanesborough

Elementary

School

District

(hereafter, referred

to

as

the

Dis

commissioned

this

review

of

specific

areas of

special

education

service

delivery

that

support

strug

learners. ln conducting

this

analysis,

the

review team

employed

proprietary methodology

from

a

established

paradigm

(i.e.,

an

Educational

Services

Analysis),

which

triangulates

information

gleaned

f

qualitative

and

quantitative information.

More

specifically,

the

qualitative

analyses

comprised:

(1)

a

seri

interviews with

special

and

general

education

teachers,

related

service

providers,

paraprofessionals,

ce

office administrators,

and

school-based

administrators;

(2)

a

review

of documents

(i.e',

lEPs)

to

asce

the degree

and

appropriateness

of

educational

programming and

services;

and

(3)

site

visits

to

Dis

programs

to

ascertain

the

continuum

of

services

and

programs.

Quantitative

analyses

included

multidimensional

analyses

of

information

contained

within the

lEPs;

(2) comparative

analyses

of

staffing

corresponding

workloads;

and

(3)

historical

financial

data

pertaining

to

special

education

program.

GLOSSARY

OF

ABBREVIATIONS

ARI:

Availability

Rotio

lndex

CST: Child

Study

Team

FAPE:

Free and

Appropriote

Public

Educotion

FTE: Full-time

equivolent

IEP: I

ndividualized

Educotion

Progrom

LRE: Least

Restrictive

Environment

OT: Occupationol

Theropist

or

occupotional

therapy

services

PD:

Professional

development

Rtl:

Response

to

lntervention

S-LP: Speech-Language

Pathologist

or speech-language

pothology

services

SWDs: Students

with

Disabilities

GLOSSARY

F{J"TLJ R*[

S

J}.U-GS"]AQ"N

GLOSSARY

OF

TERMS

Effectiveness:

The

degree

to

which

the

services

under

review

promote optimal

educationaloutcomes

student access

to the

curriculum.

Efftciency:

The degree

to

which

the special

education

services

and

personnel

under

review

are

responsi

uniformly,

and

optimally

utilized

to ensure

District

resources

are

being

expended

in

a

fiscally

sound

manner.

i..ar:trhi,r'r.rrIi:

iitlctiir:::r::i

Y

il:ltrrr:l

l-) sl iii: irliuriltiiill.''l

ilal"victrj

Ailililisi:;

r:.rr:lili:-il$rij|i):il:liiii:sliJl:

3

|f

elf

g

e


4/24

I

IACKNOWLE

DG

EM ENTS

The

authors

wish

to acknowledge

District

staff and school

personnel.

This

project

necessitated

a

great

amou

of effort

in facilitating

logistics

and

in

securing documents;

the team

is

grateful

for the efforts

of

the st

who

helped

facilitate the

process.

Throughout

the entire

process,

the

cooperative

relationship betwe

Futures

and the

District

has enabled

the team

to

work

with

District

leadership in

a collegial

manner

order to maximize

the

benefits

of

this analysis for

the

District. Futures

team members are sensitive

and focused upon,

the

ultimate

objective

of the

project:

To support the

District leadership

and

stakeholde

inattainingitsgoalsandtoimprovetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofthedeliveryofeducational

services.

I

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

The

staff

of

Futures

is

pleased

to

provide

this report

of

the comprehensive

analysis of the

programs

and

servic

conducted

in

November

of

20L4.

The

primary

purpose

of

this analysis

is

to describe,

and to

provi

suggestions

to

improve,

specific

areas

within

its

education delivery

system

that

include:

r

Financial

reports

and data

o

Student

performance

and

achievement

data

e

Student

placement

data

o

Student

identification

(eligibility

and

declassification)

data

r

Service delivery

data

including the

types,

duration,

frequency,

location, and

grouping

of

studen

o

Staffing

models

and

benchmarking

(Futures'national

database

and similar districts

will

referenced

as to benchmark

staffing

levels)

o

Rtl data and

other

information

for

special

education referrals

and

subsequent identification

rates

o

Caseloads

and

workload

analyses

of instructional, and related

services staff

o

Correlation

analyses

o

Professional

development

-

topics, frequency,

participation,

etc.

These

ten

components

are

considered

with

respect

to:

Orgonization, Climote,

and Culture, Continuum

Supports,

and

Stoffing.

ln turn,

each

component

is considered

with

respect an Overview,

Findings, a

Recommendotions.

The

report

concludes

with

a

global

consideration

of the delivery

system and those

k

recommendations

District

leadership

may consider

as

part

of

its

short- and

long-term strategic

plannin

t..-

iOVERVIEW

The

authors

intentionally

begin

this

document

with

a consideration

of the cultural

capacities of, and

within,

special education

delivery

system.

The reason for this

is

that

without

the

requisite

positive

leadership

4lP;rgo


5/24

mindsets,

all

of

the

forthcoming

recommendations

concerning

the

programmatic

and

fiscal

enhancem

will have

less

potential

for

successful

implementation'

FINDINGS

rn

generar,

those

interviewed

indicated

that

"ownership"

of

students

with

disabilities

was

quite high

amo

adults

within

the

school.

This

was

characterized

as

having

improved

across

the

District

over

recent

years' T

was

arso

cited

as

an

area

in

which

the

District

had

"worked

hard"

and

made

significant

progress,

albeit

w

some

remaining

vestiges

of

"your

kid-my

kid"

thinking.

Moreover,

there

were

reports

of

a

"disconnect"

that

gen

education

telachers

ieported

get,,push

back"

from

speciar

education

staffto

participate

in

lar

meetings

or

activitles;

for

example,

sPED

teachers

tend

not

to

go

on

field

trips'

when

it

would

be

an

id

time

for

them

to

work

with

gen

education

staff

to

herp

students

generarize

strategies

and

behaviors'

As

per

the

educationar

environments

presented

in

Tabre

1

berow,

the

resurts

of

the

data

as

it

relates

keepings

swDs

in

the

general

education

environment

is

mixed'

ln one respect'

the

District

is

doing

a

go

job

keeping

students

ii trre

generar

education

environment,

as

88%

of

all

students

with

disabilities

(swD

are

in

the

general

education

environment

for

at

least

40%

of

the

day

as

compared

to

the

state

rate

of

78

Alternatively,

within

that

subset,

the

number

of

swDs

spending

at

least

80%

of

their

day

with

the

regu

crassroom

is

onry

50%;

this

is 9%

ress

than

the

state

averag"

,nJ

10%

less

than

the

state

target'

This

la

finding

is consistent

with

the

need

to

bolster

co-teaching,

which

is

a

theme

in

the

continuum

of

suppo

section

of

this

document.

Table

1:

Educational

Environments

Relatedly,

there

was

reported

to

be

a

high

degree

of

understanding

on

the

part

of

staff

and

parents

w

respect

to

the

concepts

of

free

appropiiate

puf,ric

education

(FApE) ind

reast

restrictive

environment

(L

This

refrects

the

hard

work,

knowredge,

and

dedication

among

ail

rEp

stakehorders

to

ensure

"parent

partners."

However, per

report there

is

a small,

yet

vocal, cadre

of

parents

that

expect

special

educa

services

to

go

beyon

d

oppropriate.

perhaps

in

corroboration

of

the

rearity

of

this

vocal

minority,

members

reported

that

"the

squeaky

wheel

may

get

the

grease"

in

reference

to

receiving

more

associated

services

than

those

who

do

not.

rt

is specurated

that

this

crimate

of

special

education

being

,,onry

game in

town,,

is correrated

with

the

high

speciar

education

rate

of

23%

(i.e.,35%

higher

than

state

average),

which

is a

topic

that

shall

be

expounded

upon

on

the

next

section

of

the

document'

i..:li:i:shi,ili:.sil

[l;:;lti::l

i:i;1

"

ii.r:ii)

i

:.1

ii\ri:ii

f .:.i

iir:ii:c;

Iii

:t:

iilii,rri

l-):slril:i

ii':i

LiIi'ttitrii:ii

iiil-uir:cs

Analysi:;

5lllagc


6/24

Most respondents

expressed

that

the

quality

of

the

professional

development

opportunities

that had be

provided

was very

good

to excellent; this was all

the

more

appreciated

given

the staffs

understanding

the

fiscal constraints faced by

the District.

With that

said, a desire was

expressed

to

ensure

that

all

st

were

"hearing

the

same thing"

with

reference

to content.

i

RECOMMENDATTONS

ln

order

to

provide

the

requisite

balance between

site-based

management

of

special education servic

and

district support,

provide

the

principal

with

a

"special Education

101" refresher

session

at

the

beginni

of each

year

and

institute

a special education

strain

of

professional

learning

during regularly

schedul

leadership meetings.

(this

is

not a complete

sentence) This

capacity building

model will

allow

the

princip

to

take on a

more active

leadership role

with

special education

and

provide

him/her

with

ongoing

jo

embedded

professional

learning and

support.

Such topics

should include

strategies

to:

Ensure

all

SWDs

have opportunities

to

experience

maximal

Least Restrictive

Environment

(LR

interactions with typical

peers;

Build

instructional staff's

knowledge regard

ing inclusiona

ry

education;

Align

the continuum

of services;

Provide additional supports to new

teachers;

Ensure

that

building

leadership

understands

their

role

in

attending

IEP

meetings

as

the

Distri

representative; and

Create

heightened

consciousness

of

the

fiscal

costs

of assigned

services and

programs

at

eac

school level.

r

As

part

of an expanded

initiative

to increase

parent

participation

in

the

IEP

process,

the District

shou

consider

inviting

parents

to a

series

of

open,

candid

conversations regarding

topics

pertaining

to

speci

education law

at

both

the

school and

District

level.

Furthermore,

to support

representative

paren

engagement across

the

District, it may be

beneficial

to have

the

school-based PTO

president

work

conjunction

with

principals

to identify a

parent

stakeholder in

special

education.

r

As mentioned

previously,

some

parents

do not

understand

the educational

model of services,

the lega

standards

of

FAPE

and

LRE, and the

standard

of

required vs.

beneficial for

candidacy for

special

education

services.

This lack of understanding, coupled with

the

beliefs that special education

services

are

"the

onl

game

intown" and "more

is

better,"

is

contributingto

manyacrimonious IEP

meetings.

Therefore,

as

pa

of

a community outreach

initiative-perhaps

within

the

context of

SEPAC

meetings,

clarity

of

roles

i.,r+ricsbirrr:*gh

lilcn;:nl;::-y

Srlil--i;l 0isirici: [i$

t,rtli*r:.':i St:-vil*s Antl"tisis

qril$1

li

l"rrtr;

r:s

ll :liic;:iiiirl

6l$)age


7/24

ffi

responsibirities,

and

educationar

mission

of

schoor-based

service

provision

need

to

be communicated'

this

manner,

parents

and

other

stakehorders

in

the

community

wiil

be

further

educated

about

school-bas

services

that

wi,

presumabry

add

to

the

camaraderie,

coregiarity,

and

mutual

agreement

among

all

stakeholders regarding

the

appropriateness

of

services'

ln

addition,

as

part of

its

long-range

plan,

District

leadership

may

consider

an

intensive

community

outrea

initiative

about

Response

to

lntervention

(Ril)

components

required

in

general education

to

addre

learningneedsasa"firststep,"versusthemodelof"waitingtofail"withasubsequentreferraltospecial

education.

rn this

manner,

the

pubric wiil

understand

speciar

education

is

the

last

-

not

the

first

-

resort

educationar

teams

to

consider,

as

a

variety

of

supports

exist

at

each

schoor

to

maximize

student

learni

and

avoid

fairure

earry

on

by

providing

tor

ir'e

individuar

needs

of

students

in

general

education'

rn

order

to

maximize

pD

resources,

a

cohesive

approach

for

both

generar

and

special

education

teach

that

crearry

identifies

teacher

expectation

for student

rearning

and

achievement

is

recommended'

T

approach should include

and

specify

a

collaborative

procesJand

the

interdependency

of

general

a

speciarized

instruction,

which

shourd

be

based

on

curricurum

standards

and

evidence-based

data

for

resu

in student

rearning.

Furthermore,

this

approach

wourd

ailow

opportunities

for

the

general

and

spe

educators

to

ensure

effective

crassroom

instruction

and

estabrish

a

revorving

door

whereby

specializ

instruction

fiils

in

the,,individuar

rearning

gap"

for

students

who

arso

then

require

less

service'

l

recommendedthatsuchtrainingincludethefollowing:

o

The

role

of

each

teacher

and

related

services

staff

o

Meaningful

classroom

modifications

and

accommodations

(using evidence-based

dat

demonstrate

imProved

lea

rning)

o

General

and

special

educator

teaching

models

o

Effective

utilization

of

special

education

support

services

in

the

classroom

o

Techniques

for

prioritizing

and

accommodating

instructional

curriculum

goals'

objectives'

assessments,

etc'

oHowtowritemeasurable,educationally-directed,andinstructionally-alignedgoals

and

objectives.

ln

order

to

ensure the content

validity

of

these unified offerings the special

Education

Director

might

dire

survey

facurty

with

the

principar

in

order

to

identify

and

promote

meaningfur

pD

opportunities

to

prom

the

competencies

of

staff

in

meeting

the

needs

of

all

students

with

disabilities'

,rlrtsha11.) .irihLiir.'ii:i:;li:::l]'ili:i.ti]UIl-ii:;iriliiI'lLitiltil)ll;''ii$srvici'iAn'*r\is

TlFage


8/24

I

I

OVERVTEW

Although

the

term

"continuum

of

services"

is

associated

with

special education, it

is

useful to broaden

definition

to

"continuum of supports"

because

it

can

be used

to conceptualize a

system

of

instructional

programmatic

provisions

for all students

(i.e.,

students

with

and without

disabilities).

ldeally,

continuum

provides

programming, personnel,

and resources

to

appropriately

address

the educatio

needs

of students

in

the

general

education

classrooms;

or,

if needed, in

special

education

progra

designed

to be closely

integrated

with

the

general

education

environment.

I

i

FTNDTNGS

Supports

Through General Education

r

As

part

of this

analysis,

it

was

necessary

to

focus

on

the District's Response

to lntervention

(Rtl) process

and

procedures

as a

general

education intervention

to

support

students who are

struggling

to succeed

school

academically

and

in

other

areas.

The

Rtl

process,

although

not

typically

a

special educatio

responsibility,

has a significant

impact on the frequency

of referrals of

students for

evaluation

for

spec

education

eligibility.

An effective

Rtl

process,

or other

general

education

intervention

or support option

can minimize the

need

for referral to

special

education

because students are receiving

the

support they nee

to

be

successful

in

school.

Per report,

early

intervening

procedures post

(universal)

Tier 1

supports takes the form

of the Child Stu

Team

(CST) process,

and

is a

"work in progress."

Although

there exists a standard

document to

genera

referrals

(i.e.,

an

NL),

there

is no

outcome data-so there

is no

firm information

used to determine when an

why

a referral for

full

assessment

should

occur. lt

was noted

by one

interviewee

that CST is not fu

developed within the school, that

it needs fine

tuning, and

that it

can be

hard

forteachers to

understand

th

the

first intervention

is in

the

classroom

(as

opposed

to

someone else being responsible).

Because

the

ear

intervening

process

has

changed

in

name and

processes

recently,

this

appears

to have created mor

confusion and skepticism among staff.

A

review of 10

referrals

emanating

from the

CST

process

revealed

the following

were

lacking

with respect

to

(1)

the

measurability of

purported

interventions;

(2)

the linkage

between

the

stated

need

for

furthe

evaluation and

content-validated

assessments/screens;

(3)

a

specific description

of

the weaknesses

(e.g

speech sounds,

their

contexts, and developmental norms);

and

(

)

specificity

of

how

these

purported

nee

areas

were affecting the students

access their

general

education

curriculum.

Although there are a

number

of

reasons why a special

education

population

may fluctuate

(e.g.,

a

plethor

of SWDs moving

into

a

district,

more

stringent

entrance

criteria,

etc.) one of the

general

"meta" indicator

of

the overall

success

of a

District-wide Rtl is to

compare

the

special

education

population

across

time.

A

BlPago


9/24

@

analysis

of

the

data

reveals

that

the

current

special

education

population

of

2o'8%

compares

to

its

rate

16,%in2o7O_2OLr

and

L3.8%

in

2004-200s

ittre

year

that

R,

was

introduced

as

a

federar

mandate)'

T

trend

data,

of

an

increa

se

of

SL%in

the

rast

ten

years and

Z3yoin

the

rast

five,

is

astounding

especially

in

vie

of

the

purpose of early

intervening

processes'

Eligibility

Practices

with

respect

to

the

rEp

review,

a

main

component

to

determining

the

presence.of

an

educational

disabi

incrudes

the

findings

from

a

comprehensive

set

of

assessments,

oiten

including,

but

not

limited

to'

cogniti

testing,

achievement

testing,

and

speech/ranguage

testing.

nttt'rougr''

the

federar

raw

does

not

specify

normative

testing

terms

what

qualifies

as

an

.ir.rtionrt

oisauiiiiv

or"*hr,

qualifies

a

student

for

specializ

instruction,

a

commonry

accepted

criterion

of

standardized

scores

faring

1.5

standard

deviations

below

t

mean

(with

the

mean

equaring

100

with

a

standard

deviation

oi

rs

rt.narrd

points)

indicates

that

a

disabi

may

be

Present.

rn

consideration

of

this

standard,

the

educationar

ream

exhibited

inconsistent

adherence

when determin

erigibirity

for

academic

services

and

quarification

fo*p..irt

education'

of

particular

note

was

substantiary-sized

group

of

students

rzz'of

40)

for

whom

the

information

presented

in

the

IEP

did

not

supp

erigibirity

for

speciJrized

academic

instruction

(i.e.,

standardized

scores

were

not

1'5

standard

deviatio

berow

the

mean

or

rower

and

no

other

deficits

were

described

to

substantially

impact

the

student's

ability

accessthecurriculum)orwasinsufficienttoadequately,,ppontheneed.Thereweremanyinstancesin

which

achievement

scores

did

not

substantiate

the

need

for

academic

services.

rn

many

circumstances'

th

findings

reveared

soridry

average

skilrs.

ln

other

instances,

the

rEps

were

devoid

of

any

achievement

resu

and

thus

did

not

adequately

support

stated

academic

needs'

r

Related service

providers

reportedly

do

not

use

particular

guidelines

or

eligibility

criteria'

but

a

combina

of

standardized

scores

and

clinical

judgment.

There

is

a

feeling

from

some

team

members

that

too

m

students

have

been

found

to

quarify

for

speech

and

ranguage

slervices.

This

perception

is

corroborated

the

data,

which

shall

be

explicated

in

the

Stol/rng

section

of

this

report.

r

consistent

with

the

aforementioned

data

of

nearly

21%

eligibility

for

special

education'

it

was

reported

dismissar

can

be

a

fairry

easy

procesr,

.nd

that

parents

and

team

members

are

generally

supportive

of

recommendation.

others

reported

that

students

are

kept

on

caseroad

too

long,

and

that

there

alw

appeared

to

be

,.something

more,,

that

could

be

addressed.

one

team

member

noted

that

there

are

stud

oncaseloadgettingarticulationintervention,mostlyatparentinsistence'

t

n-District

I

nst

ucti

o

n

a

I

P

ra

cti ces

r

consistent

with

the

aforementioned

LRE

data,

the

majority

of

instruction

for

SWDs

is accomplished

v

traditionar

resource

moder,

whereby

students

reave

the

gen"r.r

education

crassroom

to

receive

targ

instruction.

However,

by

raw,

a

oistrict

needs

to

provide

a

fuil

continuum

of

instructional

supports

that

be

inclusive

of

co-teaching

and

targeted

instruction

in

the

general

education

environment'

i,iittr:ihf

i

i:liSh

ijlr'ln+\]:ill'l'

'xi'i1i--ljl

ilislt'ilt

I*tilLiiirrti']l

''i$r\:il*'i

Antl sis

::::i.liiil.llit:ir.::l::llLii:i:;:ri:ill:

9l

l}*g{}


10/24

Co-teaching model is operationally

defined

as

an "integrated

teaching model"

in which

a

content expert

(i

a

general

education teacher) and a strategy

expert

(i.e.,

a special

education

teacher) taking

joint

instruction

responsibility

of an academic course. Co-teaching

can

be

an extremely

effective

Rtl

intervention.

ln

effective

co-taught

classroom,

student

needs

can be

met through

the implementation

of varied

teachi

methods

and strategies thereby

promoting

student

achievement

(i.e.,

optimizing

horizontal

alignment) in

general

education setting

without the need

to

identify

students

as having

a disability

to

receive

support.

Despite its

pedagogical

value, co-teaching is implemented

sporadically across

the

District. The

prima

reasons

that were cited were

logistical

(e.g.,

lack

of

time).

Consequently, a

student

'lumps"

to mo

restrictive

environments

as soon

as

they are identified

given

the

absence of a well-articulated

inclusiona

(i.e.,

co-teaching

and/or targeted

instruction

within

the

general

education

classroom)

options.

With

respect to the

related

service

providers

(RSPs),

there

appears

to

be a

mixture

of

pull

out and

push

in,

the

perception

of teaching staff

that

integrated

services

is dependent

upon

the

scheduling

issues

of

the

RS

I

nrconnMENDATroNs

Response

to

lnte rve ntion

It

is

suggested that

District

leadership revisit

the District-level

plan

to re-introduce

Rtl

as

a

priority

area

part

of a

strategic

framework.

lt

is

recommended

that

the message

be

clearly

and

consisten

communicated that one of

the

primary purposes

of

Rtl is

to

ensure

that

special education eligibil

decisions are

not

the

result

of a student's lack of

access to research-based

instructional

practices

behavioral

supports

and

interventions.

lt

is

suggested, in

order

to

ensure

that the

Rtl process and

referra

emanating

from that

process,

that the

following

become

part

of the modus

operandi:

No less that 10-12

weeks

of interventions

shall take

place (as

per

the

recently

submitted ex

and entrance criteria).

Screening

tools should

have

construct

and content

validity

(i.e.,

not

just

occur

as

informa

observations or screens).

Referrals

need

to

be

specific

with

respect

to

the

description of

the

concern

in

reference

t

developmental

norms

and the

linkage

of how

the deficit

areas impact

the student's

access

t

the

curriculum

as

a

key consideration

for

special

education

(if

the deficits do not

impact th

student they

will not

qualify

for

special

education

and thus a time-intensive

evaluation

proces

will

yield

a

decision not

to

qualify

the student

in any

event).

A description of how specia I education

services,

if deemed

appropriate, will

support the

studen

in

a

manner that interventions

in

general

education

cannot.

Rtl interventions should never

exceed

IEP

intensities,

and therefore

should not

exceed

3

minutes

per

week.

i,lrncsh*rr.ru$h iLl,r:lrrr:i:;r-v

ilclxrtl

iJisi;

jir

lili.r.:;itii;r il S$rvicr.;

Analvsis

ii: l$

1

ii

iiulrlr::; lli;:ii:.:ililiIl

10lP;r*-c


11/24

rn order

to

increase

schoor-based

capacity,

awareness,

and

imprementation

of

the

Rtl

framework

th

foltowing

i,

,rgg"rt.o,-ai

...r'

,.r'oor-*ii.

,l"tine,

l:.:,,:jin

all

staff:

(1)

data

on

how

students

ar

performing

in

core

inrtrr.tion

(Tier

1)

as

we,

as

those

,...iring

.oditionar

instruction

and

support

in

Tie

2and

3;

(z)

the number

of referrars

for

*,,

,na

ir,"

,.esurtant

numii,.

of

raro.nts

referred

for

a

special

educatio

evaluation;

and,

(3)

professionar

rearning

"op"nr^,,,es

avaitanle

to

buird

capacity

to

problem-solve and

us

data

to

make

instructionar

changes

ro

,rppli

student

rearning

and

accereration

on

core

standards'

ln

order

to

support

the

consistency

of

Rtl

across

the

District,

it

is

strongly

recommended

that

principals

"ro

up,,

their

Rtr

data

,nJ*

their

monthrv

*..,ing,

to

share.th.ir

i.a,

*iir,

each

other.

As

with

the

scho

based

meetings,

these

can

be

a

poweriri

,iringuoard

oiscuss

student

achievement,

monitor

stude

progressonbenchmarkassessments'andtosharebestpracticesasagroup'

.

As

part

of

the

parent

outreach,

continue

to

educate

parents

on

the

continuum

of

supports

outside

t

singurar

purview

of

speciar

education

or";;;;;nJ

p.rron,',"r.

rn

ir,lr

,'nner,

further

understanding

will

fostered

to

ensure

that

parents, advocatJs,

and

other.orrrniiy

members

correctly

view

special

educati

as

just

one

option

arong

a

continuum

,o.rppon

a,

rearners..

rn

particurar,

this

imporiant

communication

w

herp

attenuate

irr-wi,

ai

ihose

tEp

,..tinil"*r,"r.

,or.

stat


12/24

Figure

1.

Utilization

of the

"Step

Down"

from

an lEp

Student A

Acli.tltt trc sYSTEtt4s

rre*

S

arre.*ir.,

tfidiyidurt

,nttryertioni

r

lndivtdrai

Biudent$

r

Asw*s*snt-b*$s.,

r Hitll

lrtensity

r

0{

lon*sr

.ruratisfl

:rax

2

r*r.6*.*.1

{}rsuF trlrqrwnrtsn*

-

sdfte $cud**

t*t-ai9k)

r

Hteh erffclency

f,

R*p;d r*$ >on$s

,r*o 1

ao.*

,ns*ucrisn6l

intG.@nti6nx

r,Al,

*t {tanrs

a

Pr#entlvs,

prsacdve

Stud6fi*s

Stude

EEHAVI{}R.AL

$YSTEM$

164

$

tnte.*tv*,

ltdividuit

lnrervemi*ns

.

]rdi$ldrql

$srdonu

r

Assct*sr*nt-t

aktl

a

Iti*sr}*e.

d{rrshl* prs(e


13/24

IovERVr;w

For

the

purposes

of

this

section,

Efficiency

is

operationary

defined

as

the

degree

to

which

the

personnel

un

review

are

responsibry,

uniformry,

and

optimorty

ut,ized

to

ensure

District

resources

are

being

expended

i

fiscotty

sound

monner.

A

cororary

concept

to

a

discussion

of

efficiency

is

Return

on

lnvestment

(Rol)'

Ro

best

defined

as:

A

performonce

meosure

used

to

evoluate

the

efficiency

of

an

inu.estment

or

to

compare

efficiency

of

o

number

of

different

investments.

To

carcurate

iot,

the

benefit

(return)

of

on

investmen

divided

by

thecost

this-r".iion

wi,

consider

that

benefit

againit

the

number

of

staff

devoted

to

the

positions

compared

to

other

Districts

the

authors

have

analyzed'

Tothisend,thepersonnelunderreviewavailabletosupportSWDswasgaugedbybenchmarkingthenumbe

of

fur_time

equivarent

(FTE)

staff

members

to

this

overail

in-Districispecial

education

population

o

students

(as

per

the

most

recent

data).

rn

essence,

this

statistic

is

an

"availability

ratio

index

(ARl)" and

allo

an

equivarent

comparison

of

other

districts

with

respect

to

staffing

from

a

"macro"

perspective'

Altho

numbers

of

staff

typicaily

vary

widery

from

state

to

state

and

disirict

to

district,

a

recent

report

from

urban

speciar

Education

Leadership

coilaborative

Education

Deveropment

center,

rnc.

reveals

an

import

benchmark:

speech-language

pathologisis

(115:1);

psychologists

(248:1);

occupational

therapists

(469

and

physical

therapists

(1015:1)'

The

authors'

data

ba'e

suggest"

]no'"

liberal

staffing

modelfor

spe

ranguage

pathorogists,

occupationar

therapLts,

.nd

physicar

therapists

with

the

caveat

that

these

specia

also

vary

significantly

from

District

to

District'

with

respect

to

effectiveness,

this

was

triangurated

utifizing

a

murtitude

of

sources

including

a

review

of

l

interviews,

and

inferential

statistical

analysei.

The

subsequent

commentary

section

considers

the qualita

variables

of

the

analYsis'

iffiirues

Comparative

Dota

Table

2.

Current

FTEs

Aooss

Disciplines

't.f,l.si-rriir-)l.i{il

liiclli::liiiil

ili:hilt:i

l-iisi:i'icl

ijtl*c:lliIt::li

ii$rYir':g:l

An*lysis

,ii)ii1:-i

irtrli.:l

i:li

i:i,:iii.,ri:iiJl:

13

|

p

A

g

f

Special

Education

Teachers**

Speech

Language

PathologY


14/24

School Psychologist

700-1,000:1

(all

students)

**Note

the special education teochers ratio

includes

o numerator

of

35, bocking

out

Speech Only studen

Commentary

Special Education Teachers: Currently,

the

pre-school

teacher

has 5

SWDs. ln

effect, when

the

pr

numbers

are

backed

out,

the

ARI

for

the K-6

special

education

staff

is

8.8:1,

which

is

4 %

more

hig

staffed than

the

expected ARI

of

L5:1.

Paraprofessionals: As indicated in

Figure 2

below,

the ARI

for

para-professionals

of 3:1 represents

m

than twice the most

generously

staffed District

in Massachusetts

the authors

have

analyzed. lt is nota

that

two

para-professionals

who

actually

serve as

general

education

para-professionals

are

funded

fr

special

education. The removal

of these 2 FTEs,

only

changes

the

ARI

by

.46

to

3.46:1.

Figure 2. AR for Paraprofessionals

Aross 13 Districts

in Massachusetts.

Note

that Northampton is

t

most

generously

staffed with an ARI

of 6:1

1t

F"

3

I

ffiffiwffiffiffiffiffiffi

"--

..,-'d

-*.-"*tr

,c$e

,*rnd

*r,r$

---*s

-,'.*r"

---

-"""-

-"J

l,:1lirslr*:"i:Lisli

lik:*rr':rir,:i v

Srhool

l-)isii ir:t iLiiri.nti{J1ii:i ll*rvicfs

An*lysis

t:.?$

i-i

irr:i::.ire:;

FjrJric;:iilr:

14lIlag*


15/24

s_Lp

and

or:

The

twice

as

many

staff

as

expected

is

directly

correlated

with

practice

patterns'

Eigh

percent

of

SWDs

,...r"

S-LP

services-eithei

as

a

primary

or

related

service-and

this

compares

to

a

expected

range

of

40-60%.

ryT'

or:

13d'

in

the

students

receiving

s-Lp

supporrs

through

504

and

R

23%of

the

entireschoor

popuration

receives

speech-rangrr*.

ruooorir.

rr'ir

is

an

ararmingry

high

numbe

astO%would

be

considered

a

more

typical

number'

As

excerpted

from

the

rEp

review,

the

tendency

towords

over

quarification.within

the

reroted

servi

domains

of

s-Lp

oni"o,

,rrnds

o,t

os

the

most

striking

"'n'd

""ai'd

by

the

analysis'

Quolitati

analyses

of

the

oforementioned

cohorr

rt

,irlrru

"Y:.?.l.d,a

substantiolly'sized

group

for

whom

t

informotion

present

in

the

current

rcp

,uTpoiJi

ietigiairity

(i.e.,

standordized

scores

were

less

thon

stondord

deviotions

berow

the

meon

ori

no

other

deficit,

irie

described

to

substantially

impoct

t

student,s

abitity

ro

oJrrrr

rne

curriculum)

or

wos

insufficient

to

adequotely

support

the

need'

ltisnotablethattheoTprovideswhole-classpush-inservicesattheyoungergrades.

schoor

psychorogy: considered

as

a

whore,

the

psychology

staff

of

.5

FTE

(the same

professional

is

designa

as

a

.5

counseror)

is

in

the

much

more

g.n.rorrtv

staffed

,..nr"

In

.o,'prii'on

to

the

Notional

Associatio

School

psychotogists(NAsp)

recommend"i

,rai"

range

of

t,ioo

,"

i:1OOO

students

(generar

and

spe

education).

rt

is

notabre

that

that

the

,.r,ooiprv.r'oroeiit

is

arso

'..ro"rr,ur"

for

chird

study'

Rtl'

and

commu

building.

'

[;'"t'il,il:lm:*';J:::,:#[:;T,?J:ffi'i,"#;;;ffi1"'"e

"'oent

independence

rherer

the

District

may

consider

adding

quantitative

prliL"].-:{or

e'gibirity for

paraprofessional

supports'

ln

manner,

further

parity

and

equarization

of

access

to

service-s'zrr

u"

ensured

for

the

students

across

District,

irrespective

oi

tft"

level

of

parental

or

legal

advocacy'

As

per a

best

practices

modus

operandi,

the

District,s

,'defaurt'moderwi,

be

to

assign

paraprofessiona

teachers

and

programs

and

not

to

,p..rn.

students.

If

paraprofessionar

supports

are

deemed

nece

beyond

the

progrJmmatic

assign,n.n,

oii^.

paraprofess'#;[;

;commenoeu

that

objective'

measur

and

expricit

rEp

goars

specifying

.orrurponJ,ns

trn.lionut

,t

itt,

that

will

allow

attenuation

(if

not

com

discharge

of

the

paraprofessionar

suppJris)

be

incruded

as

a

featured

component

of

the

IEP'

The

author

provideDistrictleadershipwithasamplerubricthatencompassesalloftheseparameters'

.

The

District

re-caribrate

criteria

for

s-Lp,

or,

and

pr services.

rt

is

recommended

that the

related

s

providers.onr.n"-,o

review

this

documen,,o

.nrure

ttrai

ati

of

trre

stakehorders

agree

on

the

req

criteria,

thereby

ensuring

their

equitauf

,ppii.r,ion.

lt

the

outset,

this

document

should

focus

on

the

b

issue

of

whether

or

not

a

student

;;;;

;r.,fy

for

tr-nv-or'rru

rerated,

services

based

on

func

educationarperformanceandperforr;;;;.riandardizedtei,riru*'"protocols

may

be

amended

to

s

the

intensity

of

service

derivery

urr"J-on

the

variabr.r;i;;;'efiect(s)

of

the

disability

on

aca

RECOMM

EN

DATIONS

It

is

axiomatic

that

the

"true"

number

olp?raejof-e-s1oi::?

"i:::i[l1.t#:iff:LT'i"lll[;l:::::?i:H

i...,1;q. .'1r1

t:i5i:

iiir:t:lc;rl:il'"r

i-irll''*l

li:si::

ir'i

iliiriiiliirll:'ii

S*iuir:+:;

i1nll\'sis

iitr?ii:l:i

lilrii]r..

lli:iii(il:illi)

15

|

i)

*

y;

tl


16/24

ffi

performance,

and

the

nature

of

the

educationalcurricula.

ldeally,

this

document

will

incorporate

guidelines

from

the

state

of

Massachusetts

as

well

as

best-prac

deemed

to

be

paramount

by

the

District.

The

document should

be

amended

to:

(1)

specify

the

intensi

servicedeliverybasedonthevariablesof

age,effect(s)ofthedisability

on

academic

performance,

and

nature

of

the

educational

curricula;

(2)

specify

roles

and

responsibilities

in

conjunction

with

o

educational professionals

and leadership;

(3)

and

assure

that

i.:1

treatment

is

reserved

for

the

nee

students'

The

authors

have

provided

District

leadership

with

examples

of

criteria-guidelines

for

th

services,

and

are

available

to

assist

as necessary.

i,i,]l

)

cshr

r

l i) ri$h

Lile

rili::r ia:.y

.li:h$*

I

Ll

isl:.ili

iiri tii::l tir

r tit

i

S.;

rr.iltts

.,1

niilvsi

s

,r.

.1$

l

:i I

r inr

(

rr

fl,:iii,:,r;:ii,r:

16lli*ger

The

rising

costs

of

special

education

across

the

country

and

the

state

are

well-documented.

ln

the

District,s

c

however,

expenditures

devoted

to

special

education

are

growing

at

an alarming rate

and,

although they

essentially

at

the

state

average

as a

percentage

of

the

operating

budget (19.9%),

thecurrent

model

makes

growing

trend

unsustainable.

This

trend

data

is

presented

in

Appendix

c.

clearly,

the

rising

financial

cost

special

education

are

not

in

anyone's

best

interest:

not

the

general

education

students, parents,

or

community'

More

importantly,

these

expenditures

are:

(1)

being

devoted

to

students

who

may

not

need

spe

education

services

(due

to

over-identification,

a fragmented

Rfl

process,

and

a

culture

that

special

educatio

the

only

means

of supporting

struggling

students);

(2)

are

not

necessarily

affording

students

FApE

in

the

LRE;

a

(3)

supporting

an

extraordinarily

generous

staffing

model

across

virtually

all

disci[lines.

The

sustainability

of such

resources

aside,

the

District

does

need

to

take

immediate

action

in

order

to

change

culture

of

unrealistic

expectations

among parents,

capacity

of

staff,

and

unity

of

purpose

among

educators

support

all

learners in

the

most fiscally and programmatically sound manner

porribl..

The

authors

re-prese

the

seminal

recommendations

that

District

leadership

may

consider

as

part

of its

long-range

plan

in

order

address

the

seminal

issues

deemed

of

particular

import:

1'

Re-calibrate

Ril

as

the

"first line"

of supports

for

struggling

students.

2'

Expand

the continuum

of services

to include

co-teaching

and

other

inclusionary

models.

3'

Re-calibrate

entry

and

exit

guidelines

for

the

related

service providers

and

paraprofessionals

th

adhere

to FApE,

LRE,

and

educationalbenefit.

4.

Consider

reductions

in force.


17/24

ffi

2009).Guidelines:PhysicalTherapyScopeofProctice(Scopeof

Practice)'

ntt'i"utO't'om

APTA:

www'apta'org

^--^tnnA

choracteristics

Retrieved

from

ASHA:

fflertsatt

t

rrre'--.

^r

r,^m APTA:

WW\

L,ja$a.utF. _ ,_-.^r {,^m ASHA:

:

"::*:::',:"::r;:,

^ffi

10)

s

-r

p

ca

s

e

t

o

a

d

ch

o

ra

cte

r i

stics

Retrieve

d

rro

m

As

eof

www'asha'org

'-^'

^\

c'aao nf Proctice

in

speech

Langu

American

speech

and

Hearing

Association.

(2010).

scope

of

proctice

in

speech

Language

PothologY

(scopt

Practice)'

**n"utd

from

ASHA:

www'asha'org

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)'

42

U'S'C'

Sections

LL1:OL

-

t22L3

"

'^^AE\

qtonded practices

for

teaching young

student:

"t""o},i

,*ro.Bloomington'

lA:

Nation,l

Eoucattv'

:ticor

guide

for

educational

leaders

(4th

e

Essex,

N.

L'

(2008)'

School

low

ond

the

public

schools:

A

proc

BostOn,

MA:

Pearson

EduCation'

lnc'

. a rr,^hcira of the

Day

5/19/09

,.,,.,:'::J;',

"ffi"

;"*::,":::::::"-:::J"o'''le

o*he

Dav

s/1el.e

Friend,

M'

(2013)'

lnteractions:

Collaboration

Skills

for

School

"",'*"'L::rv

lj

h"i-i

lrrsii

{Ji

Ii rii:ri:i'Jii:)1

5(luiiJ:;'\niilt\is

l':il1';r:,;.,:'i,,,,'.,,',""

17lP

a

gt:

ffi::].::.:,

il:

-

I[il;,il;;1'-

a

"no'a

prac'iices

ror'Ieach

ns'"':-

]:-":"

:-*ff

;.:mH*m-;,ff

ff

:"ar

a

nd

speciar

Education

corraboration

I

n

Forum

u.s.

Department

of

Education'

t"'*:;^:.-',.

(2006,

May/June

2006).

Afour-step

proces

Clayton,

J',

Burdge'

M''

Denham'

A"

Kleinert'

H'

L''

&

Kearns'

J'

accessing,n.

e"n"rrtcurriculum

r""r;r;;;itrr

signitffir"i'""

o'"0;;;'

Teachins

Excepil

Students'38(5)'

20+'

Coleman,M.R.(2001).Survivingorthriving:2lgiftedboyswithlearningdisabilitiessharetheirschoolstories.

Gifted

Child

TodaY

'2413\'

56-53'

r-^+, art nphind:

ln

search

of

equity

for

all

Donlevy,

J.

(2002)'

Teachers,

technology

and

training:

No

Student

Left

Behind:

ln

se

stu

de

nts''

"""'

*i"'

t

l

o

u'

n

o

t

of

''

n''ir

u,jnr)

ot

M'

d

i

o'

29

13)'

257

+'

DuFour,

R'

&

Eaker'

R'

(1998)'

erof

eslio'n'l-l

earning

*:'u"::'"7's

t

workt

Best

proctices

or

enhancing

stud

o chi

v

e

me

n''

t""rn'

t*ton'

lA:

N

ationa

I

Ed

ucation

Se

rvtce

--:-^t

ntirlP for

educational

leaders

(4th

e

Professionals'

Lynne

Cook'

Catifornia


18/24

ffi

U

n iversity,

Dom

ing

uez

H

i lls

Gallagher'

s'

A"

&

Gallagher

J.

J.

(2002).

Giftedness

and

Asperger,s

syndrome:

A

New

Agenda

for

Educati

nderstanding

Our

Gifted.

L4,l_1.2

Gartin'B'

c''&Murdick'N'

L'

(2005)'

lDEA2004:

The

rEp.

Remediarondspecioreducation,26(6),327+

L'

H'

(2005)'

No

student

Left

Behind:

opportunities

and

threats.

The

Journor

of

Negro

Educotion,

T4(2),

5+.

Hall'

s'

(2007)'

NCLB

and

IDEA:

optimizing

success

for

students

with

disabirities.

perspectives

on

Longuag

nd

Literacy,

33(1),

35+.

Hang'

Q'

&

Rabren'

K'

(2008)An

Examination

of

co-Teaching:

perspectives

and

Efficacy

rndicators

Remediat

pecior

Education

september/october

200g

30:

259-26g.

Henderson'

A'T"

&

Mapp'

K'L'

(20a4'A

new

wave

of

evidence:

The

impact

of

school,

family,and

comm

onnections

on

student

achievement'

Nationat

center

for

Famiry

&

community

connections

with

sch

ustin,

TX:

southwest

Educationar

Development

Laborat

ory.

'

-

vv"""u"'.Li

Huefner'

D'

s'

(2008)'

Updating

the

FAPE

standard

under

IDEA.

Journorof

Law

and

Education,

j7(3),367+.

Hughes,

caroryn,

et

al.

""

They

Are

My

Best

Friends,,:

peer

Buddies

promote

rnclusion

in

High

schoor."

TEA,HTNG

Exceptionar

students31.5

(1999):

32_g7.

Hyatt,

K.

J.

(2OOt). The new IDEA:

Chan

42(3),731,+.

r'rs

'rtvv

rrrEA;

Lnanges'

concerns,

and questions.

lntervention

in

school

and

clinic,

lmber'

M''

& van

Geel'

T'

(2010)'

Educotion

Law (4thed.).

New

york:

Routredge.

rndividuars

with

Disabiritie

Act

(IDEA),

at

20

U.S.C.

Section

l,a}t

G)

e2).

'"''''J"1;,I;'*''flfr,ffi::j'.|,?;:1',1;ll,ilililj.lting

Regurations

at

34

c

F

R

section

300

2

(1s)(

Jameson'

J'

M"

&

Heufner,

D'

s'

(2005).

"Highly

qualified"

special

educators

and

the

provision

of

a

fre

ppropriate

public

education

to

students

with

disabilities.

Journar of Low

and

Education,35(r),29+.

t''"'I;l;

i;:;:';r';,

(200s)'

rhe

New

,DEA:

A

summary

or

signiricant

rerorms.

Notionat

Association

"'o';lj::;:r::::?r{i:rt.every

teacher

shoutd

know

obout

.DEA

2004

taws

and

resutations.

Boston,

MA

Lancsbt;r'$r:gii

Iler11*r:Iarv

il,:iriir:l

llislrirt

[i*u*;ltii:nrl

Suruicss

Ana]vsis

,:.?)(i

I S Ir:iiil

i::;

h.,:iilc,ii

i{rri

'

ut

L:L''ir,irr'ri

ru{

t'

lBfP*5,"e


19/24

McConkey,

R.,

Dowling,

s.,

Hassan,

D.

and

Menke,

s'

(2012), Promoting

social

inclusion

through

Unified

sp

for

youth

with

intellectual

disabilities:

a

five-nation

study.

Journal

of

lntellectual

Disability

Researc

Means, J.

(2006). The

impact

of

IDEA

04 and

NCLB

on

speech

and

language

related

services:

How

do

we

m

thechallenges'ForumonPublicPolicy:AjournaloftheoxfordRoundToble.

Mele-McCarthy,

J.

A.

(2007). Approaches

to

assessment:

IDEA

and

NCLB'

Persp

ectives

on

Languoge

ond

Lite

33(1),25+.

Moore_Brown,

B.

(2004). Becoming

proficient

in

the

ressons

of

No

student

Left

Behind.

perspectives

on

sc

Based

lssues,

5(1),

7-10'

Moore_Brown

Barbara

case

in

point:The

Administrative

predicament

of

speciar

Education

Funding.

Journ

Special

Education

leadership'

(20L1)Vol

14'

No'1

Murer,

Eve.

Reading

First

and

speciar

Education:

Exarnpres

of

state

Lever

coraboration' lnForum

Department

of

Education,

Washington,

D.C.

(August,

2007),

Murray,

c.

&

Pinata,

R.

(2009).

The

importance

of

teacher-student

relationships

in

adolescents

with

high

incidence

disabilities'

Theory

into

Practice'

46121

NationalEducationAssociationwebsite,www'nea'org

National

Institute

on

Disabilities

and

Rehabilitation

see

lnstitute

on

Disability

and

Rehabilitation

Research

(.www. ed.gov/a

bout/offices/list/osers/nidrr/index'html)'

Notional

lnstructional

Materials

Accessibility

Standard

Report.

U.S.

Department

of

Education,

Washington

D.C.

(October,

14,

2004)'

occupationalTherapyinschoolsettings'(2010).Retrievedfromwww.aota.org

parent

lnformation

Research

center,

(2006).

lnvolving

parents:

Best

practices

in

the

middle

and

high

school.

Rehabiritation

Act

of

L973,

section

504.

United

states

Department

of

Education

(http://www'ed'gov)

Sacker,A.(2002)'socialinequalityineducationalachievementandpsychologicaladjustmentthroughout

childhood:

Magnitude

and

mechanisms.

Socio

I studies

and

Medicine'

55'

863-880'

Shuman,D.(2004).AmericanSchools,AmericonTeachers:/ssuesandperspectiyes,Boston,MA:Pearson

Education,

lnc'

Various

documents

from

DESE

l-:ii:cih(tia-}t*h

iji{:l:1i'i}i:iil

1'

Sih$i:;l

lJis::

ir:i

iiiricctiut:;:l

Strlvil*s

Analysis

rit:?$lliiitrllll:::;lir:ittc;t::iiit

Lgl

P

a

g

Cl


20/24

iiiiir.,.li

:

:;1i

,tl;Nt;:';ir

i

'r

':=l

'

r ,

:

.

i,.r41,l:-rrj.r

i:

:

rr.:.::

:: :.:.:..:: t:

,

tt.r t,r.1:ir:.:i

iLi::::

'lfit

Jb

ii,t::],.:,

t,

?|i;ff:,|

ilil:i.ti:l*,,;;rlii\.t,,1

t.f:i'

:::r.:

CentralOflice

1 1

Special

Educotion Teochers

t

4

General Education

Teochers

2

2

Specia

I

Ed

u cation

Paro

professiona

I t

L

Spe

e

ch

-

La

n

g

u

a

g

e P atholog ist

2

Occupotional Therapist

1

Principol

L

Psychologist

L

ReadingTeocher

t

Totals

10 9

1,3s1'5f 1yr.ru5h Hr:rne::

i;,rr

y

Srhi'ri;l

i-iistriti

Ii

Lirati{}n;,}i

Ssruicts

A ni}lvsis

lu?01

li irutlri:.t

Eiiui:a

i:iiirt

20lPag*:


21/24

Reldted

Services

o

Quantitative

and

qua'tative

anaryses

of

45

rEps

reviewed

direct

and

indirect

service

time'

servic

delivery

models,

goals

and

ouj".ti,",,

and

internal

consistency

of

information

pertaining

to

th

relatedserviceareasof,p"".r'-r,ng,,gepathology(S-LP)andoccupationaltherapy(oT).Whileth

analysis

technically

included

pr,vri..Lit',"rrpy

(PT), th;

"*prt

included

only

one

student

with

services.

rnformation

greaned

trom

tr,.

.n.iyr",

wiil

assist

in

the

deveropment

of

recommendatio

intended

to

facilitate

program

effectiveness,

enhance

student

achievement,

maximize

stude

learning,

and

capitalize

upon

staffing

and

cost

efficiencies'

o

An

anarysis

of

the

schoo's

utirization

of

service

moders

within

s-Lp

and

or

reveals

a

healt

distribution

of

service

minutes

,.ro*

the direct

,ra.itii".,

push-in and

pull-out)'

oT

is

noted

to

the

most

frequent

utirizer

of

push-in

services,

.,

int"i*ntion

within

the

general

education

sett

constitutes

2Lo/o

oftotar

weekry

or

service

minutes.

s-Lp

treatment

within

the

generar

educat

setting

totars

Lo%

of

weekry

service

minutes,

and

is

armost

excrusivery

derivered

within

ea

chirdhood

programs.

push-in

services

can

faciritate

co-teaching,

and

thus

maximize

a

studen

generarization

of

targeted

skirs

,.ro*

her/his

academic

environment.

Embedded

in

this

deliv

model

can

be

the

benefits

ot,

,"*i."

provider,s

auiritv

to

model

intervention

strategies

and

suppo

for,

as

well

as

consult

with

classroom

staff'

o

The

rerationship

between

direct

and

indirect

service

time

within

the

schoor

refrects

somewhat

of

underutirization

of

the

consurtative

moder.

A

minimar

amount

of

time

is

devoted

to

teacher-thera

consurtation

across

both

rerated

service disciprines 1s-w=zw;

o-t=4%).

The indirect deliver

services

(i.e., direct

consurtation

with

teachers

and

other

rerated

service

providers)

is

invaluable

t

coilaborative

team

effort,

as

weil

as

the

generarization

of

skiils

across

a

student's

curriculum'

wh

utirized

as

part of

a

dedicated

coilaboralive

team

.tro.t,

coisuttation

can

be

a

particurarly

effec

tool.

o

A

weak

negative

correlation

(-.19)

between

total

weekly

service

minutes

(sL-P'

OT'

and

PT)

studentagesuggestsapooradherencetothefrontloadinemoaer.Thismodeldescribesaframewo

whereby

the

greatest

intensity

of

se*ices

are

focused

onlo'ngt|.

students'

and

as

students

adva

in

age,

service

minutes

gradually

o".iin..

The

poor

ro't.rln.""to

this

model

can

be

best

exempl

by

the

observation

thatof

the

10

students

receiving.ii.rr,

100

weekry

rerated

service

minute

students

were

9

Years

or

older'

o

Despite

rerativery

'ttre

movement

in

service

minutes

across

age,

the

s-Lp

data

show

service

t

acrossmean,medianandmode(oo,oo,60)tobewithinexpectedlimits'oTserviceminutes

noted

to

be

slightly

higher

than

expected

(49' 45'

60)

i,i]l CshiJftlisi:

ijlr..::l..li::i.Y

i]rhi)iJi

i-}jsir.iii

Iij

$,llii;t:t|

jillvir:*s

Anil rsis

,:;l-ltlli :rr\:ltr:::;

ilt:ii:ciii:ilii

21

|

I)

n

g fl


22/24

ffi

F'i"'

"*:-,'c

The tendency

towards over

qualification

within

the related

service

domains

of

S-Lp and

OT stands

as

the

most

striking

trend revealed

by

the

analysis.

eualitative

analyses

of

the aforemention

cohort of students

revealed

a substantially-sized

group

for

whom

the

information present

in

current

IEP

supported

ineligibility

(i.e.,

standardized

scores

were

less

than

1.5 standard deviatio

below the mean and

no

other

deficits

were

described

to substantially

impact

the

student,s

ability

access the curriculum)

or was

insufficient

to

adequately

support

the

need.

With

specific

regard

to the

36

students

receiving

S-LP,33%

of

lEPs

did not

contain

adequate

supp

for these services.

Although

some lEPs

completely

lacked

reporting

of

standardized

speech/langua

testing,

the assessment findings

for

the

majority

students

within

this

subset

were

noted

to

be

with

the average range.

A

nearly

identical

percentage

(32%)

of

the

19

students

receiving

OT had

tEPs

that

did

not

substantia

the need

for

intervention

in

this

area.

A

preponderance

of

these lEps,

however,

did not

rep

standardized

scores, and

therefore

the evaluator could not

thoroughly

determine

whether

or not

t

students met

the eligibility

criteria.

lntegrity

and

internal

consistency

of

the lEPs

were

also

evaluated.

particular

attention

was

paid

measurability

of

goals

and objectives

and

the extent

to which

information

within

Student

Strengt

and Key Evaluation

Results

Summary

was

complete

and

consistent

with

services

rendered

and

th

alignment of

goals

to the curriculum.

While

curricular of

goals

was

often

adequate,

information

contained

within

Student

Strengths

an

Key

Evaluation Results

Summary was

at times

sparse

and

not

appropriately

comprehensive.

reported

above, results

of standardized

testing

was

at

times

missing

and

Current

performance

Leve

tended

to

provide

a

limited

amount of

information. Within

S-LP,

articulation

was

noted

to

be

the

are

most in need

of

more

comprehensive

Current

Performance

Levels.

The level

of severity

of th

articulation disorder

and

specific

sound

errors

were

consistently

omitted

from

the

lEps.

Along wi

areas targeted

by OT, social

language

tended

to

be an

area for

which

very

little

standardized

testin

was

provided.

o

overall, measurability

was

judged

to

be

adequate,

as

goals

contained

the

necessary

conditio

operationally

defined

target behavior,

and

appropriate

criterion.

Acddemics

The analysis

was comprised

of the

lEPs

of

40

students

receiving

specialized

academic

intervention

(e.g.,

special education

consultative

services,

instruction

within

the

inclusion

setting,

pull-ou

services).

o

Per

the statutes

and

regulations

of IDEA

2004,

several

factors

must

be

considered

in

th

determination

of eligibility.

Specialeducation

services

can only

be

provided

if

the

educationalTeam

22lI);ig*


23/24

ffi

has

determined:

1)

the

presence

of

an

educationar..disabirity;

2)

ineffective

academic

progress

resulting

from

the

,'.l;i;,i;

.^i

,r

tr,.

"".i

ior

specialized

instruction'

when

using

the

discrepancy

model,

a

lain

component

to

determining

the

presence

of

an

educationa

ffiliJx,t:::;ffi

,:liXH:ff

{'.",:,'.::Hfff

*r'i:Llffiu.xlll*f;$fl*fuI

raw

does

no,

,o".I,rr]^',.'"""t''"

*JH;;?*n"

iY"rint:i::i'"'tffiX-"j ;;';'rdized

scoJe

[T

i';ff

,;,]*]i

Xi:

n

:$i;*'1:{[:

rilillli:t:il;ffi

i.,

w'ih

a

s'1a

n

d

a

rd

d

ev

a'l

o

of15standa'OO"*i'f'*iitttt'thatadisabilitymaybepresent'

o rn

consideration

of

this

standard,

the

educationar

ream

exhibited

inconsistent

adherence

whe

determining"*r,oliorioracademc-s*ffi

ntlTlXfi

*l';";ffi

;*;:ipS:iffililiil

was

the

,uur,.n,i.irJ-,'oedgT'r-lll,.,,r.o

academic,.r,Jri,1".'ii.,

tt'nottdized

scores

were

n

Hl;:"Ht;TJ,tx;:x:t

j*trpi[::[:,n:tt::tri?"1#Hr:ii:iT'bed"subs'ian'[a

impact

the

student's

abiritv

.o

....r,

,n-"

curricutum)

,,

;::H*d;io

'a"ourrerv

support

th

. ;::r,

to

the

arorementio""l^:::*o

::*::^i'::ings'

there

were

manv

instances

in

wh

achievemen,

,.or.,

did

not

,uurtrnii.J.

ii"

n"ua

to,

..ro.ri."

r.J."r.

-rn

many

circumstanc

these

findines

,.r..reo

,oriorv..rr.ol.=

ili,t

i.

":-ltj

il;;;;;;'

the

lEPs

were

devoid

of

a

achievemenr

r"rri,r,

and

thus

oio

"oili"q,tt"ty

support

stated

academic

needs'

23lP:rgtr


24/24

Documents

Futures Education Audit