Reynoldsburg Special Education Plan of Action 2008-09 In spring 2008, the Superintendent requested a review of Reynoldsburg’s special education system along with reviews of various components of its educational system. Site-based management has historically been a key component of Reynoldsburg’s approach to providing education. The Superintendent sought feedback on the effectiveness of this approach. Greg Maloney, a consultant with the Educational Service Center of Franklin County, conducted the review. Recommendations and observations were provided in four major areas: • • • •
Relationship between RSD Central Office (CO) and the individual school buildings; Performance of SWDs; Compliance with special education requirements; and, Efficiency of operations.
The priority areas for the 2008-09 are in the following areas as determined with input from the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Director of Student Services, Building Administrators, Psychologists, and others (e.g., Speech Therapists, Teachers): 1. Performance of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments (including Alternate Assessment) 2. Allocation of Resources 3. Implementation of new State Operating Standards for Students with Disabilities 4. Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) 5. Services for Students with Disabilities, including support for students with Autism, students with behavior needs, alternate placements and least restrictive environment The subsequent pages outline a plan of action for each of the above areas. For a complete copy of the Special Education System Review for Reynoldsburg City Schools: Final Report submitted by Greg Maloney on June 2, 2008, contact Cathy Bregar, 501-1036.
12/15/08
Page 1 of 12
#1 Performance of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments PLAN OF ACTION Special Education Program Review, June 2008 (Excerpt) SWDs did not meet AYP in the areas reading and math, while students demonstrating LEP did not meet AYP in reading. In reviewing building level data, all but one of the elementary schools were rated as Excellent. However, the results of SWDs were not reported for these schools since the n size for SWDs was too low. The middle schools, junior high school, and the high school did not meet AYP for SWDs, primarily for reading. The gap between non-disabled students is striking; in 10th grade 97.1% of nondisabled students demonstrated reading proficiency while only 57.4% of SWD did. Significant gaps exist at all grade levels and in all subjects, and when the SWD results are compared across the racial/ethnic subgroups and economically disadvantaged subgroup. Expectations for SWDs (and other subgroups). Some respondents raised the issue of reasonable academic expectations for SWDs. Some indicated that expectations for these students were not high enough and they were not being challenged appropriately. Others indicated that expectations were too high and, at least for some SWDs, unreasonable. Some special education providers expressed confusion regarding whether they should be focusing on teaching SWDs the curriculum or focusing on IEP goals. Similar concerns regarding expectations were raised regarding students demonstrating LEP and students identified as Gifted Perception of Special Education as a Priority. Some respondents were concerned that although the performance of SWDs is said to be a priority in RSD, some actions taken in schools appear to conflict with this. In some buildings, according to respondents, intervention specialists are sometimes used as substitutes for regular education teachers if another substitute can not be found. Similarly, if an intervention specialist is out, a substitute is sometimes not hired to replace this person. In either case, respondents expressed concern that SWDs are not being served appropriately. Special education personnel were also described as being “spread thin� due to caseloads and multiple responsibilities. As mentioned earlier, concern that more district level analysis of the factors contributing to the lower AYP performance of SWDs and students with LEP has not occurred was expressed. Two issues emerged related to statewide assessments. The first concerns the use of accommodations for SWDs on statewide assessments. A high degree of variability was reported among the schools. The need for greater consistency and standardization among sites was frequently expressed. The second concerns the Alternate Assessment (portfolio assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities). Currently, only RSD students enrolled in the Franklin County MRDD program are apparently allowed to paRtIcipate per district policy. A number of respondents believe this policy is too restrictive since they know students with cognitive disabilities for whom they believe taking the Ohio Assessment Tests (OAT) is
12/15/08
Page 2 of 12
inappropriate. However, other respondents expressed concern that having students paRTIcipate in the Alternate Assessment could lead to lowered expectations for SWDs. This issue is closely aligned with the issue of what are appropriate expectations for SWDs.
Goal All staff will cooperatively work together to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum, instruction relative to needs identified on the IEP, and appropriate assessments to measure performance. Strategies Standing item on the weekly A-Team Agenda Teachers and Administrators trained to make appropriate decisions about type of assessments for students with disabilities, i.e., OAT/OGT or Alternate Assessment (September and October dates via the State School Improvement Team) Decisions about participation in alternate assessment made by the IEP team Teachers, when necessary, are trained to conduct alternate assessments (Building administrators have chosen September and October dates via the State School Improvement Team) Standards coordinators, school psychologists, building and district administrators will be provided information on appropriate assessment accommodations for students with disabilities Standards coordinators will work in conjunction with the assistant superintendent and director of student services to support building administrators in monitoring instruction and assessment for students with disabilities, including analyzing data to determine gaps and strategies Building administrators will monitor the progress of students with disabilities, specifically, as part of the agenda for meetings with groups/teams of teachers at regularly scheduled intervals Building Teams are afforded the opportunity to visit schools where general education and special education teachers work collaboratively to meet the needs of students with disabilities TBD: How will the issue of determining appropriate expectations for students with disabilities be addressed? TBD: How will staffing decisions made by building administrators (i.e., not hiring substitutes for intervention specialists, or using intervention specialists as subs) be addressed? TBD: Is there a need for special education staff from all schools to interact with each other (purpose, method)? [Other as determined by committee] Outcomes Every building has a teacher trained in alternate assessment Every building administrator attends an inservice on alternate assessment
12/15/08
Page 3 of 12
All teachers, administrators, standards coordinators and psychologists are provided information about allowable accommodations and modifications for assessment Each building will include a plan for improving the performance of students with disabilities in the building CIP Teachers report that they are better prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities Quarterly progress update to Director of Student Services Building and district performance on state assessments—i.e., meeting AYP standards, safe harbor and value added for students with disabilities
Lead: Dan Hoffman, Assistant Superintendent Committee: The A-Team (Assistant Superintendent, Director of Student Services, Director of Technology and Professional Development, Standards Coordinators), the District Leadership Team (Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Central Office Administrators, Building Principals) and REA representation. Anne Baldwin Chastity Bobst Greta Clouse Dee Martindale Sue Martin Dee McGlothlin Cathy Bregar Debbie Smith All Building Administrators Superintendent
12/15/08
Page 4 of 12
#2 Allocation of Resources for Students with Disabilities PLAN OF ACTION Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt) Resources. Respondents indicated they want to become more knowledgeable about how resources are allocated in RSD, including federal special education funds which are apparently used to pay for alternative placement tuition, personnel, and assistive technology support. They also want support for sharing resources and grouping purchases across sites, as well as the opportunity for discussing “what’s working” at other buildings that they can utilize in their schools. Goal District and Building Administrators will have knowledge of sources and amounts of fiscal resources that are available to provide special education services and will make recommendations to the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and Director of Student Services as to guiding principles (decision rules) for allocating resources for the 2009-2010 school year. Strategies • •
Examine and consider how cost sharing and bulk purchasing across the district could result in significant savings Other [To be determined by the Committee]
Outcomes Committee report regarding sources of funds and current use of funds to District and Building Leadership Quarterly progress update to Director of Student Services Recommendations for 2009-2010 to Director of Student Services by January 31, 2009 [Others identified by Committee] Co-Lead: Ted Frissora, Principal, and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student Services Committee: Mary Ann Burns Toni Nijssen/Mitch Biederman Dee McGlothlin Janet Lewis
12/15/08
Page 5 of 12
#3 Implementation of new State Operating Standards for Students with Disabilities PLAN OF ACTION Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt) In previous years, special education compliance focused on whether rules were followed in identifying and serving SWDs. Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and IDEA 04, this focus has changed significantly to one that now emphasizes whether SWDs are experiencing academic success. SWDs are expected to receive evidence-based interventions prior to referral and identification, IEP components are to be aligned with the general curriculum, and schools/districts are held accountable for the academic progress of these students. This is a major shift for many special education providers, regular education staff, and parents. The centralized organizing framework will help facilitate the transition to this paradigm across the district. Special Education Quality Control. A sample of special education documents (i.e. Evaluation Team Reports (ETRs), IEPs) from each school was reviewed. General themes that emerged included •
Unclear guidelines for special education eligibility, paRticularly for the category of learning disability;
•
IEP Present Levels of Performances (PLEPS) did not connect the student’s disability with its impact on the student’s performance on the general curriculum;
•
IEP goals were very general, sometimes immeasurable, and not aligned to the standards;
•
Special education services were not specified in terms of frequency and duration;
•
Testing accommodations did not match student’s IEP accommodations;
•
Secondary Transition planning was limited.
…Currently, cumulative special education files are maintained at the schools, which then send the ETRs and IEPs to the CO, which then contracts with a company to scan them into an online database. The student services administrative assistant maintains a special education roster that lists due dates for IEP reviews and re-evaluations, and sends reminders to staff as the due dates approach. It does not appear that at the local or district level a qualitative review of special education programming and documentation is occurring. Some districts utilize a process in which these processes and documentation are reviewed by qualified staff and the results used to guide professional development activities.
12/15/08
Page 6 of 12
Goal District staff will know the key changes in the rules and will have training and resources to implement the standards effectively. District forms, procedures and policies will be reviewed to ensure that they are in line with the new Operating Standards and the new Special Education Guidance Document created by ODE. Special education staff and building administrators will know how to download online resources including Special Education Law and regulations, Operating Standards, the ODE Guidance Document and District Guidelines. Strategies
Participation in regional and state training for new Operating Standards (September 2008) Ongoing communication to Building Administrators regarding new or revised procedures/standards/requirements Revised district-wide forms, procedures and protocols created and provided on a shared folder in the T drive TBD: How will the need for professional development/training be identified and provided? [Other Determined by Committee]
Outcomes
Quality control process implemented to determine effectiveness of program implementation and establish needs/recommendations for 2009-2010 Records review protocol established and a random review conducted to ensure that documentation is in accordance with state and district requirements 504 Process updated and disseminated Quarterly progress update by committee to Director of Student Services
Co-Lead: Tammy Yockey, Assistant Principal and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student Services Committee Kathy Litzinger, Psychologist Leslie Kelly, Asst. Principal Ann Ivinskas, Preschool Coordinator Representative Speech Language Pathologist Teacher (Elem, MS, JH, HS) REA Representative Darrell Propst, Elem Administrator Other?
12/15/08
Page 7 of 12
#4 Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) PLAN OF ACTION Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt) Intervention Efforts. All schools have implemented an Individual Assistance Team process. However, considerable variability exists in how these processes are conducted including who participates on the teams, how the referral process to the teams works, the forms and data collected from the process, and how interventions are selected and implemented. Respondents in some buildings reported the IAT was an integral part of identifying and meeting the needs of students, and even reducing the need for referrals, while other respondents indicated that the IAT was simply a necessary step to getting a student referred for special education services. Concern with the lack of follow-up was frequently noted. The implementation of the Response to Intervention (RTI) model across schools demonstrates an even greater level variability. Some schools have developed and implemented a tiered intervention model, while other schools are still considering whether to implement it. According to the SST’s RTI Implementation Report produced by the Region 11 State Support Team (SST), 5 schools attended RTI training and are implementing, 2 schools attended but are not implementing, and 4 schools did not send staff to the training. The report also indicates that 6 schools are using universal screeners and tools to monitor student success. The process for choosing and evaluating evidencebased practices is also not clearly defined. Goal Response to Intervention (RTI) will be a district-wide strategy, designed uniquely in each building (using set criteria to guide the design), to provide a research-based tiered set of intervention strategies to ensure that students’ instructional and behavioral needs are identified early and met immediately. Strategies Rubric developed for RTI used to create fidelity to the critical components of RTI and to assess effectiveness of implementation Recommend District Team to Superintendent [To be determined by Committee] Outcomes Quarterly progress update by committee to Director of Student Services Written plan for implementation at both the District and individual building level [Additional to be determined by Committee] Lead: Chris Brooks, Assistant Principal and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student Services Planning Committee: Building Principal (Elem)
12/15/08
Page 8 of 12
Building Principal/Asst. Principal (MS) Building Principal/Asst. Principal (JH) Cathy Grover, Social Worker Jodi Greene, Guidance Counselor Joyce Rings, Guidance Counselor Joan Bellner, Psychologist Standards Coordinators Cindy Pennington, State Support Team Region 11 (consultation) Greg Matthews, State Support Team Region 11 (consultation) REA Rep Other?
12/15/08
Page 9 of 12
#5 Services for Students with Disabilities, including support for students with Autism, students with behavior needs, alternate placements and least restrictive environment PLAN OF ACTION Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt) Schools demonstrate a variety of methods for addressing behavioral issues. At least two schools have implemented a school-wide system of behavioral support, while some schools do not appear to have implemented any system, other than their discipline policy. Yet, staff in all schools report behavioral and disciplinary issues to be a primary concern and one of the objectives listed under RSD Goal #3 is to “develop positive behavior/discipline plans within each building. In reviewing the discipline records for SWDs, one elementary school reported no suspensions while another school reported 11 different SWDs were suspended at least once. Although other factors may contribute to this disparity, this raises the possibility that expectations differ across schools. Finally, schools utilize different special education service models, with some using resource rooms, some using an inclusive approach, and some using skill labs. Some schools also assign intervention specialists by grade level which means that some may have larger caseloads than others. One building utilizes a cross-categorical program that includes students from two grade levels and four disability categories. Continuum of Services for SWDs Demonstrating Behavioral/Intensive Needs. Respondents expressed strong concern regarding RSD’s approach to serving SWDs demonstrating significant behavioral issues, as well as other intensive needs. Previously, behavioral units were created in the district to serve students with behavioral issues, but they have been largely discontinued in favor of serving students in their local schools and regular classrooms, possibly with paraprofessional support. If a student is unsuccessful in this placement, the next option is an out of district placement such as Excel Academy. Waggoner Road Junior High School maintains a cross-categorical program which includes students in 7th and 8th grades demonstrating a range of disabilities and intensive needs. Of the 16 students reported to be in the program at the beginning of the year, 9 remain. Some transferred but some were apparently expelled. Many staff are concerned that schools are not prepared to serve these students which impacts not only students but also special education and regular education staff. It may also be impacting the number of SWD suspended and expelled. Many respondents expressed their desire for more intensive programming provided in the districts, or at least more intensive support. This concern was shared at all levels and sites. From a broader perspective, the most recent Primary Prevention Awareness Attitude & Use Report (PPAUS) indicated that 16% of middle school students reported being called names, disrespected, physically threatened or made to feel afraid online at least twice. At the high school level, 15% reported fearing for their physical safety more than once in the previous year. Clearly, behavior management is an important issue for RSD.
12/15/08
Page 10 of 12
The issue of providing appropriate services for SWDs demonstrating significant behavioral issues is critical. One option is to provide a wider range of more restrictive settings for students, including self-contained support. Although some indicated their desire for this approach, others expressed concerns over whether students would receive appropriate instructional support or simply be maintained in these classrooms. Another option is to continue providing services in regular classrooms with intervention specialist or paraprofessional support. Many respondents indicated this approach is not meeting the needs of students, results in disruptions in the classroom that affects other students, and when students are unsuccessful in this setting the next option seems to be an out of district alternative placement. Not only is this an expensive step, it is also more restrictive than a self-contained classroom since it is out of the district. A review of the most recent Schools of Distinction Cross-Case Analysis indicates that these schools serve most SWDs in the regular classroom, but with significant supports provided. Some also indicated that students with more intensive needs are educated in pull-out or other settings. The key for RSD is to determine the model the district can support that will provide students the individualized services they require. It may be that a transition process utilizing pull-out or self-contained services would be useful until the regular education environment with support model becomes more viable.
Goal A model for providing services for students with disabilities with significant behavioral issues that the district can support will be developed. Strategies New classroom for students on the Autism spectrum through FCESC FCESC support for Autism/Behavior class at WRMS Training will provided in crisis prevention/intervention and working with students with behavioral challenges to safety/security specialists, teachers, paraprofessionals and others as needed Procedures and protocols established for functional behavior analysis, behavior plans and manifestation hearings Positive behavior supports will be addressed as part of the building RTI implementation Outcomes The full continuum of services will be available for students with significant behavioral issues The district will have district staff as trainers for Crisis Prevention/crisis intervention Staff will have opportunities to learn more about serving students with Autism/Asperger’s syndrome Quarterly progress update to Director of Student Services Functional behavior assessments and behavior plans developed for students with significant behavior issues in accordance with district guidelines and protocols Reduction in discipline leading to manifestation hearings, out of school suspension, recommendations for expulsion and expulsions
12/15/08
Page 11 of 12
Reduced numbers of students with behavioral needs placed in programs outside the district
Co-Leads: Valerie Maher, Principal, Doug Gillum, Director of Alternative Education Programs and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student Services Committee Cathy Grover, Social Worker Amy Gengo, Guidance Counselor Janet Lewis, REA Rep and HS Intervention Specialist (Elem, MS, JH) Ed Johnson, HS Building Administrator Tom Cochran, HS Asst. Principal Bob Stamps, Hearing Officer and Safe, Drug-Free Administrator Intervention Specialist (Elem, MS, JH)? Other?
12/15/08
Page 12 of 12