Download - 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$h(ire(igh
ilir..n*nii:r-v
Sr:h0i;l
0isiiic'"
Hdnci.lti':lnal
5*rvicr:s
Analysis
ii)?01ii
itrt:ri::i fliiiica :ititt
llPage
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
2/24
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
TNTR$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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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{}
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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*
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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.
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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*:
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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*
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
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
-
8/9/2019 Futures Education Audit
24/24