ESCONDIDO UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 2010

Transcription

1 P a g e 1 ESCONDIDO UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 2010

2 T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s 2

3 T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s 3 Foreword... 5 Data Collection... 5 Report Structure... 6 Section 1: Executive Summary... 7 Executive Summary... 9 Overview... 9 Summary... 9 Section 2: Program Operations Review and Analysis District Special Education Demographics and Placement Current Program Operations Table 1: LRE Measures Table 2: LRE Measures Multi-Year Comparison Referrals for Special Education Assessment Figure 1: Referrals for Special Education Evaluation by Referral Source Table 3: Students Referred Outside the SST Process and Found Eligible by Disability Category Special Education Enrollment by Ethnicity and Disability Figure 2: Percentage of Students with Disabilities by High Incidence Disorders Table 4: Racial and Ethnic Disparity Table 5: Representation of English Learners in Escondido Union ESD Special Education Programs Special Education Program Analysis Regionalized Programs Table 6: Reimbursements and Costs for IntraSELPA Placements and Services Instructional Program Caseload Guidelines Table 7: Instructional Program Caseload Guidelines Figure 3: Percentages of Students with Disabilities in Separate Classes by School of Residence Table 8: Instructional Program Caseload Guidelines Figure 4: Percentages of SWDs in Specialized Academic Instruction Programs (not Separate Class or Blended) by School Site Figure 5: Percentages of SWDs in Blended Programs by School Site Figure 6: Number of Students in Blended Programs by Time Removed from General Education and School Site32 Table 9: Cost Savings for Staffing Changes Table 10: Percentages of Students in Blended Programs by School Site Figure 7: Designated Instruction and Services: OT, APE, Speech and Language, and Other Services Speech and Language Services Figure 8: Percentages of Students Who Receive Speech and Language Support as the Primary Service by School Site Figure 9: Percentages of Students who Receive Speech Services in Addition to the Primary Program Placement by School Site Occupational Therapy (OT)... 39

4 T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s 4 Adapted Physical Education (APE) Psychological Services and Counseling Table 11: Psychologist to Student Ratio Table 12: Students in Nonpublic Schools by Grade Level and Disability Table 13: Students Receiving Special Education Transportation by Disability Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Table 14: Preschool Caseload Guidelines Federal Compliance with Maintenance of Effort Concluding Thoughts Confidential Attachment Section 3: Appendix List of Acronyms District Special Education Annual Performance Report District Special Education Annual Performance Report Special Education Transportation Guidelines Questions and Answers on Serving Children with Disabilities Eligible for Transportation Transportation Continuum For Students With Disabilities What Is A School Psychologist? Supporting Early Education Delivery Systems (SEEDS) On-Line Resources For Educators Bibliography For Paraeducator Research Works Sited... 94

5 F o r w a r d 5 Foreword School Innovations & Advocacy (SI&A) is a full service firm with expertise in attendance, special education, state and federal programs, mandates and advocacy. With the success of school districts in mind, we deliver solutions for all aspects of school operations that create revenue, student achievement and ensure compliance with state requirements and enhance school leadership. Most school districts do not have the time, access to data, or resources to complete the type of review that is conducted by SI&A. The reviewers collect and analyze information from a variety of sources to reach the findings and recommendations included in the report. It has been the review team s experience that this data is frequently not available to school district staff. Additionally, completing this type of review is the primary focus of the reviewers, unlike school district personnel who are responsible for day-to-day operations in the district. The final SI&A review is focused on fiscal, staffing, and programmatic efficiencies, and should not be used to evaluate the performance of individual district personnel. Data Collection It is understood that schools are dynamic environments and that any review offers a snap-shot in time. With that in mind, the data used in this study is intended to provide a picture of the special education program against a backdrop of federal and state accountability and compliance measures. Data reviewed in the report incorporates information from a variety of sources. To arrive at the recommendations of this report, reviewers met with and interviewed designated District special education staff, collected data from the District as well as data from California Department of Education (CDE) resources. All sources used rely on accurate reporting from the District to the CDE, Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) expenditure coding, and local information provided to the review team. These sources include, but are not limited to: California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) California Basic Educational Data Systems (CBEDS) Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) District Financial Records Interviews and Discussion with Staff Review of Select Student Records Rosters and Caseloads Assessment Practices District Policies and Procedures Nonpublic Schools and Nonpublic Agency Contracts Program and Service Structures SELPA Documents

6 F o r w a r d 6 Report Structure The report is structured to review program operations with accompanying findings and recommendations. Included is an in-depth data analysis each type of program placement provided directly by the District and/or through contracts with outside agencies. Identified in the report are service delivery options that the District may: 1) expand at school sites; 2) consolidate or modify; and/or 3) offer in the subsequent school year to benefit students; these options will reduce program encroachment on the general fund. It is highly recommended that the report be read in its entirety as our findings and recommendations are further explored in Section 2: Program Operations Review and Analysis. SI&A reviewers were not engaged to, and did not conduct a fiscal or compliance audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the overall procedures of the District s special education program. Accordingly, no such opinion was expressed. Had additional procedures been performed, other matters might have come to the reviewer s attention that would have been reported to the District. This report is intended solely for use by the and is based on the information provided by the District and should not be used by those outside the scope of the review.

7 Section 1: Executive Summary OCTOBER 2009

8 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 8

9 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 9 Executive Summary Overview contracted with School Innovations & Advocacy (SI&A) to review the current special education programs in place across the District and to make recommendations to assist the District in the budget reduction process. Escondido s enrollment and the percentage of students receiving special education services have remained relatively stable. Due to the fiscal concerns facing all California school districts, budget reductions must occur in every department and across all programs while maintaining compliance and improving student achievement. SI&A will assist the District with recommendations on ways to reduce special education costs and expand resources while preserving program integrity. Summary Special education is a district issue both instructionally and fiscally. Placement practices and decisions regarding services that students with disabilities (SWDs) receive occur at the school site level by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team which includes general education staff and administration. These decisions have had a significant impact district-wide. There are many opportunities to improve program delivery options to students with special needs. This review identified reductions of up to $1,023,591 to $1,320,225 current operational costs. However, it is important to note that when considering the recommendations or combinations of recommendations to implement, the district must consider its required MOE obligations. Should the district fall below the previous year s spending levels, the district may open itself up to penalties. The SI&A special education review is not intended to be a fiscal or compliance audit. The purpose of this review is to analyze staffing allocations and program efficiencies, which may include the identification of savings and programmatic considerations. Some of the areas reviewed include the district s adherence to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) mandate, special education program analysis, utilization of instructional assistants, designated instructional services, transportation and preschool. Following is a general overview of the most notable findings. The findings and recommendations resulting from this report are examined in depth and presented in Section 2: Program Operations Review and Analysis. Escondido Union ESD is to be commended for its overall progressive programs for students with disabilities (SWDs) and the implementation of the Response to Intervention (RtI) model currently being piloted at several elementary schools, which the District intends to take district wide. As evidenced in state performance reports, for the last two years the district has consistently met the benchmarks for serving students in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The district should be aware, however, that future benchmarks will tighten which will require the district to place additional students in the LRE to meet the requirements of the mandate. Specific recommendations of the numbers of students to be moved are detailed in the report. The District s special education assessment referral policy should also be reviewed. A majority of the District s referrals are made outside of the Student Success Team (SST) procedure. Given the high percentage of referrals outside the SST process, the district should consider establishing a policy that includes the federal regulations which require pre-referral data be gathered and considered when determining eligibility. All teacher-generated referrals for special education

10 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 10 assessments should be processed incorporating the new requirement for RtI. Appropriate intervention is required to be available through the regular education program prior to special education evaluation for the majority of students. This should include clearly articulated, appropriate interventions to use with students prior to referral for special education assessment, and include clear documentation of intervention outcomes. Additionally, it is important to note under which disability categories SWDs are being found eligible for services as well as the distribution of SWDs across ethnic categories and representation of English learners (ELs) in special education. Through analysis of the data collected, the District s percentages of SWDs by high incidence disability category are below state and county averages, and well below in specific learning disability (SLD). The proportion of SWDs identified with autism is slightly above the county average and slightly below the state average. However, the proportion of SWDs identified with speech or language impairment (SLI) greatly exceeds both state and county percentages. Although the SELPA Director and several speech therapists have developed a procedural manual to assist in refining the current assessment practices of the District s speech and language pathologists, assessment practices for identifying students with a SLI throughout the District should be reviewed and monitored to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria and best practices. It is also important to note that, for the most part, the District does not have a disparity issue or an overrepresentation of ELs identified for special education; however, eight schools within the District do have an overrepresentation of EL students. Specific recommendations to help mitigate the over identification of EL students are outlined in the report. Student transportation is an area requiring attention as well. As with all other special education services, the LRE standard must be applied to transporting SWDs. More restrictive forms of transportation result in excessive costs and increased time for students on the bus. Escondido Union ESD reported that they did not have a transportation policy in place at the time of our review. It is highly recommended that the District develop and adopt a policy for transporting special education students at all grade levels. The policy should include guidance for the IEP team when determining the necessity for including transportation as a related service. Some of the recommendations presented in the report will require staffing adjustments, most of which will allow the District to achieve significant savings while continuing superior services to its SWD population. Some of our recommendations to achieve these savings include reducing or combining specific classes, blending programs, and adjusting teaching and instructional assistant staff assignments. While costly, an increase in psychological staff is recommended and will enable the district to better serve students and to maintain compliance with assessment timelines. All program changes are discussed in detail within the report. The Federal law, commonly known as Maintenance of Effort (MOE), is also examined in this report. MOE requires public schools to spend the same level of local and/or State funds on special education as in the preceding fiscal years, in terms of either total or per-capita expenditures (34 CFR Sections to ). Implementing the practice of reviewing student eligibility, placement practices and duplicated service provisions will help the District reduce related expenditures without jeopardizing quality educational services for special needs students or Federal MOE compliance requirements. See page 48 for further details.

11 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 11 Special education is a district issue, not just the responsibility of special education staff. Cost reductions can only occur if the District successfully implements our recommendations in conjunction with a systematic process of effective monitoring and fiscal oversight.

12 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 12

13 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 13 Section 2: Program Operations Review and Analysis

14 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 14

15 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 15 District Special Education Demographics and Placement Current Program Operations Escondido Union School District, located in San Diego County, provides a continuum of program options serving students with disabilities (SWDs) from preschool through eighth grade. The District has elementary and middle school programs. Approximately 10% of the school-aged population participates in special education programs when out-ofdistrict placements are included. The District is part of the North Inland Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA). The SELPA is comprised of ten member districts and the San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE). The District serves students with mild/moderate disabilities and students with moderate/severe disabilities. Escondido USD operates regionalized programs that serve students with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), students identified as having an emotional disturbance (ED), and students with moderate/severe mental retardation (MR); they also provide regionalized services for students with low incidence disorders such as visually impaired (VI) and deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). At the time of the study, eight students were in nonpublic school (NPS) placements. Escondido USD s K-8 programs include special separate classes (SC), specialized academic instruction (SAI) classes, and designated instruction and services (DIS) support providers that include Speech and Language Therapists (SLPs), school nurses, school psychologists, adapted physical education (APE) teachers, Occupational Therapists (OTs), Certified Occupational Therapy Assistants (COTAs), and behaviorists. Instructional assistants (IAs) are included in SCs and SAI programs for between three hours and up to six hours per day. There is one one-to-one IA assigned to a specific student. Special education is a District issue, not the sole responsibility of special education staff. When concerns regarding the costs of program operations arise, the District must examine program and placement practices. Most placement decisions are made at the site level by IEP teams which include site administration, general education staff, site special education staff, and parents. District office staff is frequently in the position of responding to the decisions made by these teams. The cost of special education programs is based on the number of students identified, the number of services, and service providers agreed to at the IEP meeting. If there is a desire to reduce costs and improve student performance, interventions prior to referral for special education assessment must be implemented. Program placement practices are determined at local levels and are not dictated by the State. However, the State does monitor student placements in terms of the percentage of time spent outside of the regular education environment. Educating students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE) is mandated by both state and federal law. Compliance with this mandate is measured by the percentage of time a student is removed from the general education classroom. The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education, provided the California Department of Education s (CDE s) Special Education Division guidance and instructions on developing calculations to measure progress toward meeting the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). One of the performance measures was developed to measure school districts progress toward meeting the LRE provision of IDEA. Three targets and corresponding benchmarks have been established for this performance measure in the State Performance Plan for IDEA 2004 (CDE, 2008). Measures of inclusion in the general education classroom are defined in the three ways: (1) the percent of students educated with their non-disabled peers 80% or more of the time;

16 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 16 (2) the percent of students educated with their non-disabled peers 40% or less of the time; and (3) the percent of students in separate facilities that include public or private separate schools (center-based or special education specific), residential placements, or homebound and hospital placements. Detailed below is the District s progress toward meeting the LRE targets established as part of California Performance Plan for compliance with the IDEA. There is currently no penalty for not meeting all three prongs of the LRE measure. Least Restrictive Environment is the average amount of time students aged six to twenty-two receive their special education or services in settings apart from their non-disabled peers: A. Out regular class <21%: Removed from regular class less than 21 percent of the day. B. Out regular class >60%: Removed from regular class greater than 60 percent of the day. C. Separate Facility: Students served 100% of the time in a facility that educates only students with disabilities. Table 1: LRE Measures Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS Measure District Actual Benchmark Benchmark Met Target A. <21% 71.1% 68% (min) Yes 76% (min) B. >60% 13.6% 14% (max) Yes 9% (max) C. Separate Facility 0.6% 3.9% (max) Yes 3.8% (max) 1. Finding: In April 2010, the CDE published their Special Education Annual Performance Report (the report for Escondido Union ESD is included in the appendices along with the report). As shown below, the District consistently met the benchmark for the past two years on all of the LRE measures. Table 2: LRE Measures Multi-Year Comparison Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS and the CDE Measure District Actual District Actual District Actual Progress Made A. <21% 72.1% 71% 71.1% No B. >60% 10.9% 11% 13.6% No C. Separate Facility To Meet Target Increase by 4.9% (94 students) Decrease by 4.6% (89 students) 0.4% 0% 0.6% No Surpasses target Escondido Union ESD meets the benchmark for all measures for this year. In , these targets will tighten more. Although the District has done an impressive job maintaining the LRE standards at a high level, staff will need to continue to focus on moving students into less restrictive environments. As displayed in the above chart, the percentage of SWDs being removed less than 21% of the day will need to increase by 4.9% (94 students) to meet the target. Escondido will also need to decrease the percentage of SWDs being removed more than 60% by 4.6% (89 students). Commendation: Escondido Union ESD has a tradition of serving SWDs in the LRE. This practice has been evident in previous state performance reports. The District has maintained a high level of students in the LRE over the past few

17 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 17 years. The District has met and exceeded the benchmarks for the year, and is surpassing many districts in the state. Both the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) have shown that the academic outcomes for SWDs are far greater for students who are educated in the general classroom for the majority of the school day. However, as the benchmarks change in and the academic expectations increased, the District will need to continue moving SWDs into the LRE. In the past three years, the District has not made significant growth in placing SWDs in the LRE. Staff will need to continue their practice of moving students into less restrictive environments to meet the targets. Training materials to assist IEP teams in making LRE decisions are available on the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) Web site at Referrals for Special Education Assessment From May 2009 to June 2010, 435 students were referred for special education, not including preschoolers. Of these, 131 referrals were from parents, 132 came from the Student Success Team (SST), and 123 were referred by teachers outside of the SST process. The below figure depicts the results of the referrals and results of completed assessments. Figure 1: Referrals for Special Education Evaluation by Referral Source Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS Parent Eligible Not Teacher Eligible Eligible Referrals 14 Not Eligible SST Eligible Not Eligible Other* Eligible 11 Not Eligible * Referral by other district staff personnel and others outside the district Findings and Recommendations 2. Finding: Referrals from sources outside the SST process account for 68% of the referrals, whereas SST referrals accounted for 32% of the total referrals. Seventy-two percent of students referred for special education assessment were found eligible for services. Given the high number of students referred for assessment outside the SST process, an analysis of the disability categories under which students were eligible for special education was completed. A summary of this analysis is depicted in the figure below.

18 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 18 Table 3: Students Referred Outside the SST Process and Found Eligible by Disability Category Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS Disability Parent Teacher Other Staff Other Total Mental Retardation Speech and Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotionally Disturbed Orthopedically Impaired Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Autism The vast majority of students found eligible for special education were identified as SLI. Frequently, speech referrals in which the main concern is articulation go directly to the SLP for assessment and placement rather than being routed through the SST. Recommendation: Consideration should be given to establishing a policy that includes the federal regulations which require pre-referral data be gathered and considered when determining eligibility as part of the referral process. Specifically, federal law requires that the following be included when students are evaluated for specific learning disability (SLD): To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in Sec. Sec through (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child's parents. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 1401(30); 1414(b)(6)) All teacher-generated referrals for special education assessments, including speech only, should be processed incorporating the new requirement for RtI. There is no differentiation in the legal requirements for initial assessments between disabling categories. Once a student is identified as a SWD, regardless of disabling condition, they are eligible for any service option. Appropriate intervention is required to be available through the regular education program prior to special education evaluation for the majority of students. This should include clearly articulated, appropriate interventions to use with students prior to referral for special education assessment, and include clear documentation of intervention outcomes.

19 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 19 As the instructional leader at their schools, each school administrator should take responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the SST process and monitoring interventions to determine their appropriateness, integrity of documentation, and use of other categorical resources before referral to special education. The site administrator should function as a gatekeeper at SST meetings and throughout the referral and IEP process to ensure only appropriate referrals are made to special education. The site administrator s role should also extend to the assessment and IEP team meeting, ensuring that only those students who are eligible and who appropriately qualify are placed in special education. There are training modules available regarding the IEP process, IEP team member s roles and responsibilities, and the impact that decisions made at IEP meetings have on the student and staff. These modules were developed by the U.S. Department of Education in conjunction with NICHCY and The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt) and are available for download and use at and Special Education Enrollment by Ethnicity and Disability In reviewing placement practices across the District, it is important to note under which disability categories SWDs are being found eligible for services as well as the distribution of SWDs across ethnic categories and representation of English learners (ELs) in special education. The trend of overrepresentation of certain ethnic groups in special education across the nation and in California continues to be an area of concern. IDEA requires that states and local education agencies (LEAs) address the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education. Indicators that are used in measuring disproportionality include an overall measure of ethnic representation, ethnic representation across disability categories, and suspension and expulsion data. Figure 2: Percentage of Students with Disabilities by High Incidence Disorders Data Source: California Department of Education 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Mental Retardation 210 Speech or Language Impairment 240 Emotional Disturbance 260 Other Health Impairment 280 Specific Learning Disability 290 Disabilities with a population of fewer than 20 students were not included. Autism 320 State County Districtwide 3. Finding: The figure above compares the percentage of Escondido s SWDs by disability with the county and state. The percentages of SWDs by high incidence disability category are below state and county averages in the areas of mental retardation (MR), emotional disturbance (ED), other health impairment (OHI), and well below in specific learning

20 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 20 disability (SLD). The proportion of SWDs identified with autism is slightly above the county average and slightly below the state average. The proportion of SWDs identified with speech or language impairment (SLI) greatly exceeds both state and county percentages. SWDs in the low incidence categories of deaf (DEAF), hard of hearing (HH), visual impairment (VI), orthopedic impairment (OI), deaf-blindness (DB), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) comprise 7.5% of the special education population in the District as compared to 5.63% for San Diego County and 5.19% of the statewide total. Recommendations: The percentage of students with a SLI in the District greatly exceeds the state and county levels. Assessment practices for identifying students as SLI throughout the District should be reviewed and monitored to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria and best practices. At the time of the review, the Director and lead speech therapist had developed a procedural manual to assist in refining the current assessment practices of the District s speech and language pathologists. Overall, racial and ethnic disparity is based on the distribution of SWDs, in grades K-12, across the ethnic categories as compared to the distribution in the general population. There are five ethnic categories per federal code: American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, African American, and White. Additionally, the state reviews the distribution of the five ethnic categories across six high incidence disability categories. These disability categories include: mental retardation (MR), specific learning disability (SLD), emotionally disturbed (ED), speech and language impairment (SLI), other health impairment (OHI), and autism (AUT). Data specific to overall ethnic disparity special education programs within Escondido Union ESD is presented in the table below. Table 4: Racial and Ethnic Disparity Data Source: Data Quest, California Department of Education Federal Ethnicity Code of Asian includes: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Laotian, Pacific Islander, and Filipino. Ethnic populations with fewer than 20 students represented were not included in the calculations. RACIAL & ETHNIC DISPARITY American Indian Asian Hispanic African American White General Ed Special Ed Percentage 4.76% 6.81% 8.99% 11.89% 10.51% High Percent Low Percent Percent Difference Benchmark 11.89% 4.76% 7.13% <11% The established target for the ethnic disparity measure to be achieved in is 5.0. The benchmark for the ethnic disparity measure is 9.5; Escondido Union ESD s ethnic disparity measure is 7.13 (African-American 11.89% minus American Indian 4.76%). This is a decrease over the ethnic disparity measure (see the Special Education Annual Performance Report included in the appendices) when the District s ethnic disparity measure was 9.22, with a high and low percent of 15.98% for African American and 6.76% for Asian, respectively. While ethnic representation specific to the SWDs population is not included in state and federal measures, the data was included in this review to highlight areas that may warrant further consideration. The District should be commended for the low disparity measure and for consistently meeting the benchmarks in this area. This has been an area of intense litigation and tension across the nation as it is an indication of cultural understanding and sensitivity.

21 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 21 Overrepresentation of English Learners (EL) in programs for SWDs has been the basis for litigation in a number of cases. These cases have led to multiple changes in IDEA requirements to ensure that EL students are not over represented in special education programs. The table below provides a comparison between percentages of the total EL population by the percentage of EL students in special education programs. Table 5: Representation of English Learners in Escondido Union ESD Special Education Programs Data Source: DataQuest, EdData, and June 2010 CASEMIS SCHOOL SWDs SWDs who are ELs EL % of SWDs % of EL Population By School Site Heritage K-8 Charter % 1% Bear Valley Middle % 18% Farr Avenue Elementary % 78% Reidy Creek Elementary % 17% Bernardo Elementary % 8% Nicolaysen Community Day % 74% Central Elementary % 73% Conway Elementary % 56% Del Dios Middle % 38% Felicita Elementary % 78% Mission Middle % 49% Juniper Elementary % 64% Lincoln Elementary % 77% Oak Hill Elementary % 62% Rose Elementary % 67% Glen View Elementary % 61% Orange Glen Elementary % 53% Miller Elementary % 32% Hidden Valley Middle % 34% North Broadway Elementary % 32% Rincon Middle % 24% L. R. Green Elementary % 20% Pioneer Elementary % 84% Rock Springs Elementary % 53% Classical Academy % 0% Districtwide 1, % 44%

22 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 22 The table above shows the percentage of SWDs who are EL students as compared to the percentage of EL students within the general population. Information from CDE indicates that 44% of the District s K-12 student population is designated as EL. The EL population at school sites ranges from 3% to 84%. Among SWDs, the percentage of ELs ranges from 1% to 83%. At eight of the school sites, ELs are overrepresented in special education (highlighted) by 10% or more. Classical Academy did not have any enrolled students designated as EL. 4. Finding: For the most part, the District does not have a disparity issue or an overrepresentation of ELs and should be commended for this. However, the District does have eight schools with an overrepresentation of EL students in special education (indicated in blue): Bear Valley Middle, Bernardo Elementary, Central Elementary, Del Dios Middle, Mission Middle, Hidden Valley Middle, Rincon Middle, and L.R. Green Elementary. Five of these schools are middle schools. It can be very difficult to reclassify ELs who have disabilities; therefore, middle school data is frequently skewed. Federal and state laws require that evaluations of linguistically and culturally diverse students must adhere to the following regulation: (a) In addition to provisions of Section of the Education Code (EC), assessments shall be administered by qualified personnel who are competent in both the oral or sign language skills and written skills of the individual's primary language or mode of communication and have a knowledge and understanding of the cultural and ethnic background of the pupil. If it clearly is not feasible to do so, an interpreter must be used, and the assessment report shall document this condition and note that the validity may have been affected. (b) The normal process of second-language acquisition, as well as manifestations of dialect and sociolinguistic variance shall not be diagnosed as a handicapping condition. [Authority cited: EC 56100(a), (i), and (j)] [Reference: EC 56001, 56320, 56324, and 56327; and 34 CFR , and ] Recommendation: District special education staff, support staff, and personnel responsible for the implementation of EL programs at these school sites should be provided training in the area of assessment specific to linguistically and culturally different populations. Improving assessment practices to differentiate between language delays and language disorders will reduce the number of students identified for special education, and afford staff responsible for different categorical programs common ground on which they can establish the best way to meld resources and provide interventions for EL and struggling students. The District may still wish to utilize resources and training available through The National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt) at NCCRESt is funded through the U.S. Department of Education s Office of Special Education to provide programs, technical assistance, and professional development aimed at closing the achievement gap between students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and their peers while reducing inappropriate referrals into special education. Supports from NCCRESt are provided free or at minimal charge. There are also training modules and resources available through the NICHCY. A list of additional Web site resources is provided in the appendices.

23 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 23 Special Education Program Analysis At the time of the review, Escondido Union ESD operated fourteen severely handicapped separate classes (SH SC), fourteen learning handicapped (LH) SCs, five SCs designed to serve emotionally disturbed (ED) students, and seven SCs designed for autistic students that serve the K-12 population. The District operated 21 specialized academic instruction (SAI) classes not assigned to SCs and 20 blended classes. Additionally, the District ran two preschool SH SCs, one preschool LH SC, three preschool autistic SCs, and one preschool reverse mainstream SC to serve students identified as having Asperger s syndrome. One of the changes that was instituted when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized in 2004 was the inclusion of Response to Intervention (RtI) to identify students as learning disabled and a clear focus on prevention activities. According to the United States Department of Education National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, November 2009 technical report, the appropriate implementation of RtI has led to the following results: Data from schools that have implemented RtI for a while indicate a reduction in identification of students as having a learning disability, as many previously identified with disabilities only needed appropriate instruction. Fewer inappropriate referrals to special education because a more valid method for identifying students as disabled is used, particularly under the category of specific learning disability. Earlier intervention with more students who are at risk of school failure. Reduced inappropriate identification or over-identification of children from minority groups in special education. More and ongoing collaboration between general and special education. In 2009, CDE published a document titled Determining Specific Learning Disability Eligibility Using Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI 2 ). RtI 2 was defined as; a general education approach of high-quality instruction and early intervention, prevention, and behavioral strategies. RtI² offers a way to eliminate the achievement gap through a school wide process that provides assistance to every student, both high-achieving and struggling learners. It is a process that utilizes all resources in a school and school district in a collaborative manner to create a single, well-integrated system of instruction and interventions informed by student outcome data (p, iii). Findings and Recommendations 5. Finding: Approximately 10% of Escondido Union ESD s student population is identified as SWDs requiring special education services. This number includes K-12 SWDs, but does not include infant and preschool SWDs in the total. The percent of identified students is within the accepted standard of 9-10% for districts not implementing RtI programs. Recommendation: A Response to Intervention (RtI) model is currently being piloted at Rose Elementary, Rock Springs Elementary, and at Reidy Creek Elementary. The District intends to make RtI a district wide intervention program. Having a strong pyramid of intervention in place is an integral part of encouraging student success and is consistent with changes in IDEA and NCLB. RtI s three tired intervention will assist in the prevention of student failure by addressing areas of concern through appropriate instruction. By implementing RtI district wide, more students will receive the assistance they need and promote proper identification of SWDs. Further training on RtI will increase intervention success and teacher support.

24 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 24 It is recommended that the District consider placing an emphasis on RtI in the primary grades to be consistent with best practice and research. Skills developed in the primary grades provide the foundation for future learning. In kindergarten through third grade, students are learning fundamental skills in the areas of reading and math. The focus changes at fourth grade from skill acquisition to using the prerequisite skills to acquire new knowledge. Reading levels at the end of first grade are highly predictive of high school reading levels. In fact, less than one in eight children who are failing to read at the end of first grade ever catches up to grade level under traditional models (California Reading Initiative, 1999; National Association of State Boards of Education, 2006; International Reading Association and the National Association of Young Children, 1998; National Institute for Literacy, 2008; Tarrant, 1998). Additionally, The District should explore multi-funding special education support staff out of other categorical programs to assist in providing the needed interventions. Changing the funding model will not provide overall savings; however, it will reduce the special education encroachment into the general fund and allow more flexibility in the use of staff. Areas that are frequently overlooked as districts change programs and practices are grading and homework. Yet, teacher practices in these areas have a significant impact on student achievement, inclusion, and high school drop-out rates. Homework that is not properly assigned and monitored can have a negative impact on student achievement (U.S. Department of Education Guide on Homework). Many high performing districts have changed the focus from teaching to learning in evaluating grading practices. Under this type of model, teachers and administrators understand that learning has not occurred if students are failing (DuFour & Eaker, 1998), and that public schools should have practices that make it harder for students to fail than to achieve. It is highly recommended that the District review grading and homework practices in light of a focus on learning rather than teaching. Regionalized Programs Escondido Union ESD is the largest provider for regionalized services in the SELPA. The District operates programs that serve students with low incidence disabilities, taking over the North County (the northern portion of San Diego County) low incidence students. The District also operates regionalized programs for severely handicapped students and for autistic students. According to the June 2010 CASEMIS, the District is serving 79 students from other districts, of which, 27 are being served in a SH separate class or an autism separate class. The North Inland SELPA s AB 602 Implementation Plan states that districts are reimbursed $6,000 per student by the resident districts for special day class (SDC) placements, plus an additional $1,750 for designated instructional services (DIS) (limited to language & speech and adaptive physical education [APE]). Excess costs incurred beyond the base program will be the responsibility of the resident district. An additional $2,500 is reimbursed for preschool students placed in a SDC. Reimbursement for placements in deaf or hard of hearing and Intensive Autism programs is $19,700, plus an additional $3,796 for DIS. Speech and language is included in the base cost for the DHH and autism programs. The District also receives the base revenue limit for the students. The funded base revenue limit in is $4,727. Findings and Recommendations 6. Finding: Based on current caseloads and the average salaries provided at the time of the review, the cost per pupil in the SH program, DHH program, and the Autism program is $12,259, $18,314, and $26,417, respectively. These costs include preschool students through 8 th grade students. The table below shows the reimbursement and costs for the out of district students.

25 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 25 Table 6: Reimbursements and Costs for IntraSELPA Placements and Services Data Source: Class Lists as of July 2010 and June 2010 CASEMIS Severely Handicapped Number of Students Reimbursement Total Costs Net Cost/(Reimbursement) for District Base Services 8 $48,000 $118,816 $70, Speech and Language 8 $14,000 $11,950 ($2,049.56) APE Services 8 $14,000 $15,351 $1, Preschool 2 $5,000 - ($5,000.00) Base Revenue Limit 8 $37,816 - ($37,816.00) Total 8 $118,816 $125,371 $6, Autism Spectrum Disorder Base Services 4 $78,800 $105,666 $26, Speech and Language 4 - $5,975 $5, APE Services 3 $11,388 $5,756 ($5,631.55) Base Revenue Limit 4 $18,908 - ($18,908.00) Total 4 $109,096 $117,398 $8, Deaf or Hard of Hearing Base Services 15 $295,500 $274,710 ($20,789.96) Speech and Language 16 - $23,901 $23, APE Services 4 $15,184 $7,675 ($7,508.73) Base Revenue Limit 15 $70,905 - ($70,905.00) Total 15 $381,589 $306,286 ($75,302.81) Overall Total 27 $609,501 $549,055 ($60,446) This is the estimated cost for serving out of district students. It includes the weighted staffing costs for teachers, instructional assistants, psychologists, speech therapists, and APE specialists. However, there are additional costs beyond the scope of the review. These costs include administrative costs, costs of health services, and the cost of materials and supplies. Other services needed by SWDs in regionalize programs, such as occupational therapy, instructional assistant (IA) support, or behavior intervention services that exceed the costs of the base program and are the responsibility of the resident district. Escondido Union ESD appears to be adequately funded by providing regionalized programs through the SELPA funding model. Instructional Program Caseload Guidelines Caseloads presented in this report are based on June 2010 CASEMIS and the caseload lists provided at the time of the review. It is understood that caseloads may have fluctuated since that time. The in-depth analysis of caseload distributions in California that was conducted by School Services of California (SSC) resulted in recommended caseload guidelines. Additionally, facility allowances and class loadings for special education programs are included in the Education Code. These guidelines are presented in the table below and will provide the basis for the review of staffing formulas and recommendations in this study.

26 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 26 Table 7: Instructional Program Caseload Guidelines Data Source: Class Lists as of July 2010 SSC Caseload Guidelines Severely Handicapped SDC Learning Handicapped SDC SDC for Students with ASD Intensive Behavior Intervention (IBI) Resource Specialist Program Blended Program students, 2 assistants students, 1 assistant 8 students, 2 assistants 8-10 students, 2 assistants 28 Maximum, 1 assistant No Guidelines Exist Building Code Pupil Loading EC students, 2 assistants 12 students, 1 assistant 6 students, 2 assistants 6 students, 2 assistants Per student count No Guidelines Exist Escondido Union ESD Caseload Averages Severe Handicapped SC Learning Handicapped SC SC for Students with ASD Intensive Behavior Intervention (IBI) SAI not assigned to SCs Blended Program 9.9 students, 1.4 assistants (0.9 FTE) 12.6 students, 1.1 assistants (0.7 FTE) 6.6 students, 2.6 assistants (1.9 FTE) 7.2 students, 1.6 assistants (1.0 FTE) 24.7 students, 1.3 assistants (0.7 FTE) 17.8 students, 1.4 assistants (0.8 FTE) Separate Classes and Specialized Academic Instruction (SAI) Typically, separate class programs serve students with the most significant learning and behavioral needs. School-aged SWDs in these placements represent 19% of the special education population (364 students) not including NPS and outof-district placements. At the time of the review, the District employed 14 FTE teachers to serve the severely handicapped students, 14 FTE teachers to serve the learning handicapped students, five FTE teachers to serve students with emotional disturbance, and seven FTE teachers to serve students with autism spectrum disorders. The following figure shows SC placements by school of residence and by school of attendance, exclusive of out-of-district placements.

27 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 27 Figure 3: Percentages of Students with Disabilities in Separate Classes by School of Residence Data Source: Class List as of July % 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Residence Attendance 7. Finding: A large number of students are attending schools other than their residential school sites. Of the 364 schoolaged students in a separate class, 283 students attend a school other than their home school. Eleven of the schools in Escondido Union ESD serve a high percentage of SWDs in SCs from other school sites. Five of the school sites have SC students, but attend programs located at other schools. Additionally, four school sites show a large number of their SWDs receiving SC services from other school sites. The table below shows the SC placements by school of residence and by disability.

28 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 28 Table 8: Instructional Program Caseload Guidelines Data Source: Class Lists as of July 2010 OHI MR SLD AUT SLI OI ED TBI HH DEAF VI Bear Valley Bernardo Avenue Central Conway Del Dios Farr Avenue Felicita Glen View Hidden Valley Juniper L.R. Green Lincoln Miller Mission Middle North Broadway Oak Hill Orange Glen Pioneer Reidy Creek Rincon Rock Springs Rose Total Recommendation: Whenever possible, it is best to serve students at their home school site. It is recommended that the District review the students placed in SCs and determine if programs can be created at the home school, this will meet LRE targets and potentially reduce transportation costs. Additionally, this provides SWDs more opportunities to interact with non-disabled peers who reside in the same neighborhood thereby adding the opportunity to be included in community based activities. Finally, the pattern in the data suggests that assessment and placement practices need to be reviewed at some of the school sites. Specialized Academic Instruction (SAI) and Blended Programs The SAI program serves students for less than half of the instructional day; the student is in the regular education class for the majority of the day. In Escondido, the SAI is generally a less restrictive program placement than an SC setting. The District operates SAI classes, separate from SCs, designed to serve students in the LRE and resembles the configuration of an RSP model. Currently, 27% of the special education population is served in SAI. Depicted in the figure below is the percentage of SWDs receiving SAI support by school site, excluding SCs and blended classes.

29 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 29 Figure 4: Percentages of SWDs in Specialized Academic Instruction Programs (not Separate Class or Blended) by School Site Data Source: Class Lists as of July % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Within the District, there are 519 SWDs served by 21 FTE SAI teachers (excludes SCs). There are 29 IAs employed by the District assigned to the SAI teachers working from three to six hours per day. The average teacher caseload is 24.7 students. The statutory RSP caseload must not exceed 28 students [EC (c)]. This statutory limit is not imposed in schools where the District has obtained a waiver from CDE. In addition to the SC and SAI structure, the District operates programs that blend these two models at Bear Valley Middle, Del Dios Middle, Rock Springs Elementary, Reidy Creek Elementary, Rincon Middle, and Rose Elementary school sites. A total of 356 students, 19% of the SWD population, are being served through the blended program. There are 29 IAs assigned to the blended programs. Students at these sites are provided support by a special education teacher based on the number of minutes of SAI identified on the IEP document. The figure below shows the percentage of students in the blended programs.

30 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 30 Figure 5: Percentages of SWDs in Blended Programs by School Site Data Source: Class Lists as of July % 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Reidy Creek Elementary Rose Elementary Rock Springs Elementary Del Dios Middle Bear Valley Middle Rincon Middle District Average In blended programs, effective collaboration between special and regular education is encouraged and supported. In addition to direct services, special education staff should serve as a resource and support to the regular education staff for both special and regular education students, as they work together to meet student needs in the LRE by addressing and providing needed accommodations. By expanding collaboration between special and regular education staff, all underperforming students benefit from the communication. If included in the School Plan, special education staff (SC, SAI, DIS) can work with non-identified students as long as the needs of special education identified student have been met. For instance, an intervention program can include both SWDs and general education students who are struggling. By melding resources and programs, all student needs can be met more efficiently. Findings and Recommendations: 8. Finding: At the time of the review, the average SH SCs had 9.9 students and 1.4 (0.88 FTE) instructional assistants (IAs). Additionally, these SH SCs had five interpreters, two medical care technicians, and three signing aides. Including these aides in the calculation increases the average IA per class to 2.1 (1.4 FTE). The average learning handicapped (LH) SC had 12.6 students and 1.1 (0.71 FTE) IAs. The intensive behavior intervention (IBI) SCs served an average of 7.2 students and have 1.6 (1.0 FTE) IAs. The autism classes averaged 6.6 students and 2.7 (1.9 FTE) IAs. Recommendation: Staffing for the SH and LH classes appear to be appropriate. However, the District may consider reducing the number of IBI classes at Miller Elementary. There are three full-time teachers, along with five (3.22 FTE) IAs, instructing 19 students, an average teacher-to-student ratio of just over 1:6. The recommended caseload guideline for IBI SCs is eight to ten students with two assistants. The data suggests that the classes were loaded according to specific grade ranges (i.e., K-2 and 3-5), which explains the small class sizes at the higher grade levels. However, it should

31 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 31 also be noted that two of the 11 students in the classes serving third through fifth graders are in the IBI SC for 22% or less of the school day. Eliminating a class would save the District approximately $87,772. Potential Savings: $87, Finding: Based on the information provided by the District, there are 21 FTE SAI teachers not assigned to SCs. These SAI teachers caseloads range from 13 to 43. Nine of the SAI teachers have caseloads at or above 28. Six teachers have caseloads ranging from and six have caseloads under 21 students. Fourteen FTE LH SC teachers have caseloads ranging from 10 to 15 students. Additionally, 20 FTE teachers are assigned to blended programs at Bear Valley Middle, Del Dios Middle, Rock Springs Elementary, Reidy Creek Elementary, Rincon Middle, and Rose Elementary. Caseloads range from six students to 30 students in the blended programs. Recommendation: Escondido Union ESD is encouraged to adjust staffing assignments and to continue to develop blended programs to better utilize existing resources at the sites and increase least LRE options for SWDs. Making this type of change must be based on student and site needs. As the District considers adjusting program configurations and expanding collaborative programs, current data should be reviewed when evaluating the effectiveness of the program. Where there are areas of concern, program adjustments should be made. Middle school special education teachers may want to review program delivery to provide services to students based on student need and teacher expertise because any special education teacher can teach a special education student. It would be possible to develop subject matter expertise within the special education staff that would enhance support provided to the general education teachers. This will provide more flexibility in program options and allow for increased collaboration opportunities without overwhelming staff and support providers. Collaborative and resource room programs address the needs of all underperforming students and address RtI requirements. Special education services may be provided to pupils who have not been identified as individuals with exceptional needs when a description of the services is included in the school site plan [EC (a)]. Collaboration generally results in fewer minutes of SAI identified in the IEP document and special education staff focusing on English language arts and mathematics interventions. In school-based programs, the intervention is available to all learners if so stipulated. 10. Finding: At Mission Middle, three full-time SAI teachers not assigned to SCs and five IAs are employed to instruct 47 students. The average caseload for each class is 15.7 students. Additionally, five full-time blended teachers are assigned to 99 students at Rincon Middle. This is an average caseload of 19.8 students. Recommendation: By adjusting staffing ratios at these particular school sites, the District may find some significant savings. Reducing the number of classes to two at Mission Middle is highly recommended and would still keep caseloads at 23.5 students. At Rincon Middle, reducing a class would bring the caseload average to just students. This would result in a savings of approximately $230,399 (removing one teacher position and one six-hour IA at each school site). Potential Savings: $230, Finding: The make-up of the LH SCs at Hidden Valley Middle makes them good candidates for blending with the SAI teachers not assigned to SCs at the sites. The composition of these programs, based on LRE measures are similar to the

32 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 32 blended programs operated at other sites in the district; more students are removed from the general education classroom for less than 60% of the school day. The figure below shows the composition of the blended classes currently operated within the district by LRE measures as compared to the students at Hidden Valley Middle by LRE measures. Figure 6: Number of Students in Blended Programs by Time Removed from General Education and School Site Data Source: Class Lists as of July Students Out of General Ed >59% Students Out of General Ed 22%-59% Students Out of General Ed <21% 0 Bear Valley Middle Del Dios Middle Rock Reidy Springs Creek Elementary Elementary Rincon Middle Rose Elementary Hidden Valley Middle Recommendation: SAI teachers not assigned to SC caseloads are restricted to the regulatory guidelines specific to resource specialist programs (RSPs). It is assumed that each teaching position that is reduced also will result in the reduction of an IA position. At Hidden Valley Middle, two LH SC teachers and three SAI teachers not assigned to SCs serve 97 students. If the five classes were blended into four, the average caseload would be just over 23 students. The removal of one teacher and one 5.5-hour IA, would result in an estimated savings of $106,792. Additionally, the District may also consider reducing the number of blended classes currently in operation. Caseloads for these classes are as low as six students. The District employs 5.0 FTE at Bear Valley Middle to instruct 76 students. If the District chooses to remove a SAI teaching position at this site, the average caseload would be 19. Likewise, the District could consider reducing one SAI teaching position at Del Dios Middle, where 69 students are served by four full-time teachers. Summarized below is the approximate saving the District may see if the recommendations are followed.

33 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 33 Table 9: Cost Savings for Staffing Changes Data Source: Class Lists as of July 2010, Average Salary as of July 2010 Proposed Staffing Changes in LH SC, SAI not assigned to SCs, and Blended Classes School Cost Hidden Valley Middle Remove 1 FTE Teacher $ 73,071 Remove hour Assistant $ 33,721 Bear Valley Middle Remove 1 FTE Teachers $ 79,323 Remove 1 6-hour Assistant $ 35,877 Del Dios Middle Remove 1 FTE Teachers $ 79,323 Remove 1 6-hour Assistant $ 35,877 TOTAL $ 337,192 Potential Savings: $337, Finding: The District operates 21 SAI classes within the district with 29 (14.56 FTE) IA positions allocated to SAI teachers. On average per FTE, SAI teachers are allocated 1.3 (0.7 FTE) IAs. Education Code (6) (f) stipulates that: At least 80 percent of the resource specialists within a local plan area shall be provided with an instructional assistant. The length of time allocated to each IA is not specified in the regulations. This finding is based off current staffing levels, not taking into account any recommended changes made earlier. Recommendation: The law is silent on the length of time allocated to each IA and it is not specified in the regulations. However, many districts allocate three to 3.5 hour IA positions to RSPs to reduce costs. While this practice may save costs, primarily in the area of benefits, it results in a great deal of staff turnover, which in turn makes it difficult to maintain trained staff and program consistency. Additionally, districts have difficulty in filling these positions. Ultimately, this kind of change may result in lower student achievement or may be impractical in specific programs. Given that caveat, if the District finds itself in the position of having to make this type of reduction in the current budget climate, the District could eliminate eight three-hour IAs and the savings would be $103,508, which would leave the District with 21 total IA positions in SAI classes; this meets the ratio of one IA per teacher in accordance with the Education Code. The table below summarizes additional savings for multiple reduction options.

34 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 34 Table 10: Percentages of Students in Blended Programs by School Site Data Source: Class Lists as of July 2010, Average Salary as of July 2010 CURRENT STAFFING INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES REDUCTION IN HOURS Hours Total # of IAs Salary + Benefits $219, $15, $44, $14, $322, $19, $103, $187, TOTAL 29 $602, $33, $103, $187, Total Number of IAs Cost Reduction $33, $103, $187, Total Reduction Cost Reduction for Employees exceeding 3.50 hours per day $201, converted to 3.50 hours per day (11 Positions) By capping the hours for SAI IAs at 3.5 hours a day, the District can see a savings of approximately $201,351. Additionally, Escondido Union ESD does not adjust the duty days for IAs to account for early release days for students. During these hours, the IAs are not working with students. By adjusting the IAs duty days to align with the student academic time, significant savings for the District may be achieved. A reduction of this nature would result in an approximate savings of $119,753. This reduction includes all SC, SAI, and blended program IAs. Potential Savings: $424,612 One-to-One Instructional Assistants The need and requests for paraprofessional assistance have increased dramatically in the last few years. Inclusion and the increase in the incidence of autism have dramatically escalated the use of IAs in schools. Parents and teachers frequently request IA support when students are placed in general education classrooms. Commendation: The District only employs one IA to provide one-to-one support for students with significant behavioral and learning needs at 3.46 hours per day. District staff is highly commended for this practice, as research does not support that consistent one-to-one intervention assists the student to develop independent skills and interact effectively with peers. Research does reflect that the student becomes dependent on the adult. In some cases, the aide becomes the student s primary instructor. The District has developed an effective policy and procedure for implementing a one-to-one paraprofessional plan, which includes an appropriate fading plan and a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the one-to-one program. Natural supports in the students environments are utilized. Frequently, the use of adaptive equipment, peer buddies,

35 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 35 and collaborative planning can address the needs of the fully included student. In general, instructional aide support has been added to a classroom, not to a specific student. Designated Instruction and Services (DIS) In California, the term "designated instruction and services" is synonymous to the term "related services" in federal code. This term refers to transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as may be required to assist an individual with exceptional needs to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children. The pie chart below depicts the percentage of SWDs who receive one or more DIS by provider type, excluding transportation. Figure 7: Designated Instruction and Services: OT, APE, Speech and Language, and Other Services Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS Other Services, 18.3% OT, 7.6% APE, 9.3% Speech and Language, 64.8% Speech and language support is the most common DIS service provided to SWDs across California and throughout the nation. In Escondido Union ESD, speech and language support makes up 64.8% of all DIS, whereas APE makes up 9.3%, OT makes up 7.6%, and all other services (e.g. nursing services, counseling, sign language interpreters, Braille support, etc) make up 18.3% of all DIS provided to SWDs. Some students are provided multiple services from a variety of providers. While many believe that more services result in better outcomes, unless absolutely necessary, multiple services can lead to a fragmentation of the SWDs educational program resulting in lower student achievement. Additionally, many of these services are frequently very costly and produce limited results. Some DIS and/or related services are discussed in more detail below.

36 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 36 Speech and Language Services Escondido Union ESD operates its speech programs with FTE Speech and Language Pathologists (SLPs) to work with the K-8 population, which includes 6.65 FTE purchased through vendors (costing approximately $613,540 this past year). Of the total SLPs, 7.55 FTE are assigned to preschoolers, with 0.75 assigned to autistic preschoolers, 1.0 FTE assigned to deaf or hard of hearing preschool/kindergarten students, 0.8 FTE assigned to the preschool diagnostic team, and 0.2 FTE assigned to AAC evaluations. Additionally, 0.2 FTE SLP is assigned as a district mentor, 0.2 FTE SLP is assigned as an audiologist and 0.8 FTE are assigned to private schools. The District has proactively taken measures to employ SLPs and reduce the dependence on NPAs for this very critical service. It is anticipated that the District will save approximately $197,665 when replacing the 6.65 FTE SLPs purchased through NPAs with District hired SLPs. In addition to this savings, employing SLPs rather than using NPA staff will give the District more control over assessment practices, service delivery, and greater flexibility in the use of staff. This is critical, as the District is over identified in the area of speech and language impaired (SLI). There are 1,369 K-8 students receiving speech and language services from the District, which results in a staffing ratio of 1:57. According to the June CASEMIS data, over 45% of Escondido Union ESD s total special education student population is identified as having a primary disability of SLI, when preschool students are included. The following figure shows the percentage of students who receive speech as their only special education intervention, not including preschoolers. There are 657 school-aged students receiving speech and language services as their primary special education intervention through the District, representing 35% of the K-8 special education population. Figure 8: Percentages of Students Who Receive Speech and Language Support as the Primary Service by School Site Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

37 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 37 When reviewing service delivery practices, it is important to gauge the scope of SAI services provided in addition to speech and language support by SLPs. In some instances the students needs can be met within the RSP or SDC program and result in better outcomes. The figure below shows the total percentage of students who receive speech services, including those students with related speech services. Figure 9: Percentages of Students who Receive Speech Services in Addition to the Primary Program Placement by School Site Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The percentage of students with disabilities receiving SLP support as their primary service ranges from 3% to 66%. When SWDs are receiving speech services in addition to SC and SAI placements, the percentage of SWDs provided speech services ranges from 17% to 60%. Unduplicated and duplicated speech services are provided to 72% of the special education population. Findings and Recommendations 13. Finding: There is an over identification of SWDs under the category of SLI. Over 45% percent of the District's total SWD population is identified as having a SLI. This percentage exceeds the county average of 27.41% and the statewide average of 25.46%. In addition, 72% of Escondido s SWDs, excluding preschoolers, are receiving some form of speech and language service. Speech frequently serves as the door into special education services. There is a great deal of variation in language development during early childhood. This variation coupled with second language acquisition can lead to children with language differences being misidentified as having a language disorder and found eligible for special education.

38 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 38 Recommendation: To establish consistency in the identification of students needing speech and language service specifically, it is highly recommended that the protocols, checklists, and procedures that have been developed for use by speech therapists be adhered to when considering speech eligibility and exit criteria. Staff may want to utilize a severity rating scale to help substantiate eligibility and dismissal criteria. A sample of a severity rating scale and the general criteria for when dismissal from services is appropriate are delineated in the ASHA guidelines, and more specific practices for dismissal from services are available through the ASHA Web site. Norms for the development of speech sounds should be reviewed and strictly followed. Developmental norms should be referenced as a basis for eligibility criteria. As all children develop at differing rates, a range of performance levels is expected throughout the diverse school-wide population. With clear-cut and agreed upon developmental levels specific criteria for placement should be generalized throughout the district. There is no differentiation in the legal requirements for initial assessments between disabling categories. Once a student is identified as a SWD, regardless of disabling condition, they are eligible for any service option. All students, even those being referred for speech, should receive a comprehensive multi-disciplinary assessment to ensure that all areas of suspected disability [EC (f)] have been addressed. Team evaluations and decision-making is encouraged in the ASHA Guidelines for the Roles and Responsibilities of the School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist (2000). (This document can be downloaded from the ASHA Web site: Specific regulations and training tools regarding assessment requirements under IDEA 2004 have been developed by the U.S. Department of Education and are available at Finding: There is a high percentage of SWDs in SC and SAI that also receive speech and language services. Many times, SWDs in more restrictive placements receive duplicated services based upon issues with articulation. In most cases, assistance can be given to the primary service provider in order to meet the speech sound needs of the SWD s in their program. The student s language development or vocabulary needs should be implemented into the program provided by the primary teacher. Recommendation: The role of the IEP team is to review assessment results, determine the student s current level of performance, develop goals and objectives and make program placement recommendations. In some cases, a student may be eligible for services based on one assessment while the goals and objectives should be implemented by the primary service provider the SC or SAI teacher [EC (a), (b)]. Traditional practice is to have the person who completes the assessment provide the intervention; however, multiple services tend to interrupt the instructional program and may interfere with the student s understanding of core concepts. The need for each service and provider should be carefully reviewed as part of the IEP process. This recommendation holds true for any student in any program. Services provided on a monitor basis may no longer be necessary to ensure student growth. When appropriate, assigning additional responsibility to the primary service provider would reduce the speech therapist caseloads and bring the District into compliance with caseload guidelines. As with all special education staff, district SLP s should review policy regarding the service of students in which English is their second language. Language needs should be incorporated into the student s daily program with goals and objectives to be met in by the service provider for that setting. An additional resource for working with culturally and linguistically different students is available on the NCCRESt Web site at Providing pull-out services to students acquiring English and/or with low language exposure to work on skill development can paradoxically lead to greater language delays.

39 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 39 Finally, The District may consider implementing a short-term speech intervention program that will assist students who may not yet be on IEP s. Types of students involved could include those with mild/moderate delays in articulation, as typically their needs can be met on a short-term interval basis, thus moving more students through the program in a rapid manner without increasing speech services on IEPs. Follow-up and support could be provided to students in the LRE by giving teachers information to implement in the classroom on speech sound development and production (i.e. visual and kinesthetic materials from the LiPS program). This information may also serve to reduce the number of teacher-generated referrals to the speech therapist. 15. Finding: Within Escondido Union ESD the SLP to student ratio in is 1:66 when preschool students are included. Each preschool speech student is weighted at 1.3 of the SLP s caseload. These ratios do not include the portion of SLPs assigned to the following duties: audiologist, District mentor, diagnostic team services, and augmentative and alternative communication services. There are nine IAs assigned to SLPs. CCR stipulates, (b) Caseloads of full-time equivalent language, speech, and hearing specialists providing instruction and services within the district, special education local plan area, or county office shall not exceed a districtwide, special education local plan area-wide, or county-wide average of fifty-five (55) individuals unless prior written approval has been granted by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. (c) Services may be provided by an aide working under the direct supervision of a credentialed language, speech, and hearing specialist if specified in the individualized education program. No more than two aides may be supervised by one credentialed language, speech, and hearing specialist. The caseloads of persons in subsection (b) shall not be increased by the use of non-certificated personnel. SLPs exclusively serving preschool students have a caseload limit of 40. Recommendation: Due to the District s over identification in SLI, the District s caseloads are too high. The entrance and exit procedures of SLI students should be adhered to in order to reduce identification. Interventions should be utilized with students, when appropriate, prior to a special education evaluation. If the above recommendations concerning the identification and service of speech students are implemented, the SLPs caseloads should be significantly reduced. Additionally, consideration should be given to the elimination of IA positions that are assigned to SLPs. Speech assistants cannot be used to alter regulatory caseload requirements. This reduction would result in a savings of $116,446. Potential savings: $116,446 (on instructional assistants) Other DIS Providers Occupational Therapy (OT): Occupational Therapists provide training in daily living skills such as dressing and hygiene, as well as fine motor skills related to holding objects, handwriting, cutting, and other activities. Their treatments rely on the use of specific tasks or goal-directed activities designed to improve the functional performance of an individual as it relates to the smaller muscle groups. They may also work on sitting, posture, and perceptual skills (i.e., recognizing differences in color, shape, and size) and many Occupational Therapists specialize in feeding and swallowing. Some Occupational Therapists emphasize or restrict their treatment to sensory integration therapy (SIT). OT services in the school setting are designed to assist in the development of underlying skills necessary for academic learning, self-help and vocational skills. When an OT assessment is warranted, the Occupational Therapist evaluates and provides consultation, accommodations and/or modifications that support the academic needs of the student. If the needs cannot be met in the classroom setting, direct service would then be implemented. The District should be aware

40 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 40 that there is no research support for SIT. Specific information and research articles related so SIT are available on the following websites: and Findings and Recommendations 16. Finding: Escondido Union ESD utilizes a combined push-in, pull-out program to deliver OT services. Push-in keeps students in the LRE and the District is recognized for utilizing push-in whenever it is appropriate for the student. Escondido UESD employs two 0.88 FTE Occupational Therapists to serve a total of 160 students. The average caseload for an Occupational Therapist in the District is There are no specific caseload guidelines for Occupational Therapists and IDEA is silent on the issue. A review of multiple state guidelines indicate that OT caseloads are determined using a formula between the distance a therapist travels and the number of direct service hours students are provided service. The lowest caseload guideline found was in Wisconsin, where the published caseload guideline is 45. American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) recommends using workload versus caseload to determine staffing levels. Recommendation: The District is encouraged to develop and implement guidelines for determining eligibility and services. Each student receiving OT services should have specific goals tied to the service and these goals should be educationally relevant and research-based. There are currently no state or federal laws that set distinct eligibility criteria for OT services. The AOTA focuses on improvement of functioning and not serving goals beyond the capacities of the individual student. With clear and concise eligibility criteria the over-utilization of OT services should decrease. Examples of these goals and objectives include printing legibly; cutting out shapes; tracing lines within ½ inch; copy a five to six word sentence. These goals could be met in the classroom setting through the Handwriting Without Tears program and others through accommodations. Students whose needs can be met in the primary programs should be discharged from OT services. If the District chooses, OT services can be integrated into the classroom setting. The Occupational Therapist provides services in a center within the classroom with specific activities designed to address motor skills and then consult with the teacher to ensure the skills are incorporated and practiced throughout the student s academic program. The students would benefit from the consistency across settings, increased practice, less fragmentation of academics due to pull-out services, and would not need to be identified on the Occupational Therapists caseloads. AOTA notes that pull-out services built around the clinical model have little support in the educational literature and frequently do not promote the generalization of skills to the classroom or other appropriate settings. In line with IDEA s mandate on services being provided in the LRE, the OT would be assigned based on a consultative time study model versus direct service model. In most cases, a student s OT needs can be met through the SC/SAI program. The primary service provider for that student can identify and assist students who have special needs in the area of sensory or motor skills. Most students with needs in these areas can and should be served by their classroom teacher and other district support staff. In this case, the Occupational Therapist is available to provide guidelines and collaborate with the teacher to set classroom goals as part of a comprehensive educational plan for that student thus eliminating the need for the student to be part of the Occupational Therapist s caseload. Adapted Physical Education (APE): Adapted physical education is for individuals with exceptional needs who require developmental or corrective instruction and who are precluded from participation in the activities of the general physical education program, modified general physical education program, or in a specially designed physical education program in a special class [California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Education, Section (a)]. Additionally,

41 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 41 Appropriate and meaningful intervention strategies should be based on the child s needs, age, and curriculum content. It is recommended that all general physical educators (a) be aware of their responsibility to serve all children... and (c) be aware of accommodations and modifications that are appropriate for their classes (Adapted Physical Education Guidelines, p. 57). Guidelines for establishing inclusive learning environments for diverse student populations in PE are available in Chapter 7 of the 2009 Curriculum Framework for Physical Education in California Schools. Best practice is to have collaboration occur between all educators working with the student to determine the most appropriate and least restrictive environment. As per best practice, the APE specialist should be used to provide consultation to general education teachers in order to assist them with alternative instructional plans or with any modifications or adaptations that the student may require in order to successfully participate with their general education peers. As noted above, there are multiple ways that SWDs physical education needs can be met. APE services should not be included on the student s IEP if the student s needs can be met through either modified or specially designed PE. Specific goals should be addressed by the classroom or physical education teacher. A referral for a formal APE assessment should only be considered after all modifications or adaptations have been attempted with little success. Documentation of the outcomes is critical to the process. A student s strengths and needs should be evaluated upon what impact they have in relation to the school s physical education program. APE is not a disability category; however, it can be the only service that is provided in the special education continuum. Findings and Recommendations 17. Finding: The District employs five full-time APE specialists. A total of 196 students are currently receiving APE services, according to the June 2010 CASEMIS. This is an average caseload of just over 39 students per APE specialists. The caseload guideline for APE specialists is students. Recommendation: The District should monitor all APE/DIS services provided to students. Students in the regular PE program should not require APE support. Rather than providing direct APE services, specific goals should be addressed by the classroom or PE teacher with support from the APE specialist. It would be appropriate per caseload guidelines to reduce one APE specialist position; however, this is not recommended for Escondido Union ESD because, per contract language, the APE teachers provide prep coverage for the SC teachers and it requires five APE positions to meet this obligation. Psychological Services and Counseling: Escondido Union ESD employs 10.8 FTE school psychologists to serve a district-wide population of 19,319 students ( CBEDS). The District also employs three school psychologist interns. In 2003, through AB 722, the California Legislature authorized the Study of Pupil Personnel Ratios, Services and Programs. In March 2005, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) conducted a national study which examined the average psychologist to student ratio. The findings of those studies and the District ratio are depicted in the table below.

42 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 42 Table 11: Psychologist to Student Ratio Data Source: NASP National Study, CBEDS School Psychologists Findings and Recommendations Statewide Ratio Survey Ratio Adequate Ratio Recommended Ratio Escondido Union ESD Ratio 1:1,327 1:1,588 1:1,273 1:1,000 1:1, Finding: District staffing levels of school psychologist to student ratio is 1:1,789 which is above the ratio recommended by NASP, the adequate ratio, the nationwide ratio, and the statewide average. The current ratios could make it difficult for the District to maintain compliance with assessment timelines. Additionally, the high ratio and demand for assessments limit the psychologists ability to assist sites with students that exhibit significant behavior problems. The school psychologist is typically the professional who is the lead in comprehensive special education evaluations. Special education evaluations are scrutinized and are frequently the findings in due process cases and litigation hinge on the quality of the psycho-educational evaluation. Psychologists should adhere to the NASP ethics and standards for assessment practices. The district is recognized for its commitment to having all its psychologists trained as Behavior Intervention Case Managers (BICMs) at the time of this review. Both IDEA and the Hughes Law require that a behavior intervention plan be developed, implemented, and monitored prior to moving a student to a more restrictive placement due to behavioral concerns. This certification enables the psychologists to complete Functional Analysis Assessments, and develop, monitor and implement Behavior Intervention Plans (BIP). Recommendation: It is understood that there is a budget crisis, with that in mind, to the extent possible consideration should be given to increasing the number of psychologists by 3.76 FTE within the District as funding allows. School psychologists are required to complete an internship before they can receive a credential. As an interim step, the District may want to recruit interns, supervised by District psychologists, to assist in the next school year. This would allow for an intern to have training specific to the District s programs and goals with the intent to hire in the following year. It should be noted that school psychologist interns cannot be used to calculate psychologist to student ratios. In the future, as the District hires psychologists, it is recommended that every effort be made to hire psychologists who are Board Certified Behavior Analysts. This is not an area recommended for reductions. Potential Cost: ($296,634) Student Placements in Other Districts and Nonpublic Schools Districts are required to provide a full continuum of program and placement options for SWDs. These options range from minimal services provided in general education to nonpublic schools (NPSs). NPS placements can be the most appropriate option for a small percentage of SWDs. 19. Finding: Escondido Union ESD provides programs for students ages three through eighth grade. Based on the June 2010 CASEMIS, the District places eight students in NPS programs. In , the District spent $169,239 on NPS

43 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 43 placements. In , the cost was approximately $295,906. The following table shows the number of SWDs in NPS s by grade level and primary disability. Table 12: Students in Nonpublic Schools by Grade Level and Disability Data Source: June 2010 CASEMIS Disability Grade Level ED AUT OHI 6 th Grade th Grade Commendation: The District has maintained an impressively low level of student placements into NPS programs. Program specialists have placed students in appropriate programs, contributing to the District s consistent program integrity and cost savings. NPS placements should be seen as an intervention and not a permanent school option. NPS placements need to be reviewed every six months and students returned to District programs as soon as it is feasible. Transportation Transportation is a major expense for any school district. Students are transported to schools based on program placements. In most Districts, students attend their school of residence and access general transportation. As defined by Education Code section (d), special education transportation means either of the following: (1) the transportation of severely disabled special day class pupils, and orthopedically impaired pupils who require a vehicle with a wheelchair lift, who received transportation in the prior fiscal year, as specified in their individualized education program or (2) a vehicle that was used to transport special education pupils. Education Code section (b) (5) defines home-to-school transportation as the transportation of individuals with exceptional needs as specified in their individualized education programs, who do not receive special education transportation as defined in subdivision (d). It is the responsibility of the IEP team to determine the type of transportation the student requires. Federal and state law requires that transportation guidelines be available and utilized by the IEP team for determining transportation services to eligible students. Escondido Union ESD s transportation cost is approximately $278,433 in for home-to-school transportation, serving 37 students on IEPs. The cost for severely disabled/orthopedically impaired transportation was $1,087,945, serving 157 students on IEPs. The total cost of transportation in for special education is $1,366,378. Based on the December 2009 CASEMIS, there are a total of 341 students receiving transportation services on their IEPs. The following table displays the 341 students identified as receiving transportation services by disability and by grade.

44 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 44 Table 13: Students Receiving Special Education Transportation by Disability Data Source: December 2009 CASEMIS Disability Grade MR HH DEAF SLI VI ED OI OHI SLD AUT TBI Total Percentage Preschool % Kindergarten % 1 st % 2 nd % 3 rd % 4 th % 5 th % 6 th % 7 th % 8 th % Total Count Percentage 17% 1% 4% 10% 1% 7% 13% 11% 10% 24% 1% 20. Finding: As with all other special education services, the LRE standard must be applied to transporting students with disabilities. More restrictive forms of transportation result in excessive costs and increased time for students on the bus. Escondido Union ESD reported that they did not have a transportation policy in place. Education Code section requires all local educational agencies (LEAs) that provide education services to adopt policies relative to the special education services they provide consistent with agreements stated in the SELPA plan. Education Code section (b) (5) specifies transportation as one of these policies. Recommendation: Escondido Union ESD should develop and adopt a policy for transporting special education students at all grade levels. The policy should include guidance for the IEP team when determining the necessity for including transportation as a related service. The policy should also include sample language than can be included as part of the IEP for purposes of standardization and consistency when determining the individual needs of SWDs. Included in the appendices are additional reference materials, CDE guidelines, and the recently released federal guidelines for special education transportation. Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Autism is the most rapidly growing special education eligibility category for public education. As more children are diagnosed with ASDs, the costs and demands of serving this population in schools has dramatically increased. In 2005, the National Autism Center launched a comprehensive meta-analysis titled the National Standards Project aimed at addressing the needs for evidenced-based practices and establishing guidelines for the treatment of children with ASDs. In the fall of 2009, the publication of the results of this project and a guide for evidence-based practices for schools was released. The National Standards Project committee recommends that districts continue to follow the National Research Council recommendations for intensity of services for children with ASDs who are less than eight years of age. The adult to student ratio recommended by the National Research Council for young children with ASDs is 1:2. These

45 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 45 documents are used as the basis of findings and recommendations contained in this report and are available at Escondido Union ESD has developed a behavior program, aligned to best practices, designed to meet the needs of the autistic student population. This successful program was designed in the school year and is a regionalized program; many program decisions were based on the recommendations in Educating Children with Autism, which the National Research Council authored. The ASD program utilizes a combination of research-based practices, particularly Discrete Trial Training (DTT), and maintains a teacher to student ratio close to 1:2. The program focuses on the development of language and social skills. There are appropriate supports for mainstreaming students and transitioning to the least restrictive placements. In addition, all staff psychologists are BICM trained and qualified to administer the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale (ADOS). This has positively impacted behavior programs and proper ASD identification. The success of this program will help to prevent placements in NPSs. At the time of this review, the District operated six elementary SCs and one middle school SC that specifically designed to meet the needs of the ASD population. The elementary autism program is operated on the North Broadway campus with six full-time teachers and 14 IAs (10.25 FTE) while the middle school program, located on the Rincon campus, had one full-time teacher and four IAs (2.72 FTE). Together, the programs served 46 autistic students, of which 39 were in elementary school and seven where in middle school. The ASD program classes were created according to grade levels; there were seven total classes: two pre-k, one first, one first through third, one second through third, one fourth through sixth, and one sixth through seventh. Findings and Recommendations 21. Finding: The increase in ASDs throughout the nation will require schools to provide even more broad-based approaches to meeting the unique needs of this population. There are 181 students in Escondido diagnosed with autism as their primary disability; of these, only three attend a NPS. Currently, the District operates three autism SCs for preschoolers at a staffing ratio of 1:3, two autism SCs for preschoolers/kindergarteners at a staffing ratio of 1:2, three autism SCs for students from first through third grade at a staffing ratio of 1:1.6, and two autism SCs for the higher grades at a staffing ratio of 1:1.75. The preschool and preschool/kindergarten are staffed appropriately. However, staffing levels at the higher grades may be reduced. The recommended guideline for SCs for students with autism spectrum disorder is eight students and one teacher with two assistants (adult to student ratio of 1:2.5) for ages eight and up. These recommendations are based on what is required in the Education Code; however, it should be noted that some programs designed to meet the needs of the autistic population, require a greater adult to student ratio, such as discrete trial. In addition, according to Educating Children with Autism (Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Research Council, 2001), autism classes for students up to age eight are appropriately staffed at an adult to student ratio of 1:2. Recommendation: The District may reduce the number of IAs at Rincon Middle. The autism SC is staffed with one fulltime teacher and four IAs (one 3.5-hour and three six-hour). Eliminating the one 3.5-hour IA and one six-hour IA will put the staffing ratio at the school site at 1:2.3. This recommendation may result in a potential savings of approximately $52,050.

46 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 46 Additionally, reductions can be made at the autism SCs at North Broadway Elementary. One class that serves four second through third grade students has a full-time teacher and two IAs. Another class has seven first grade students operated by one full-time teacher and three IAs. By removing two 6-hour IAs, an assistant at each class, the adult-tostudent ratio would be 1:2 for classes serving first through third grade students and the District would save approximately $71,754. Potential Savings: $123,804 Preschool According to the June 2010 CASEMIS, a total of 339 preschool students are identified as SWDs in Escondido Union ESD. Of which, 33.6% were educated in the least restrictive environment (removed from regular class less than 20% of the school day). Nearly all of the preschool SWDs (332 students) receive speech services, 58 receive OT services, 54 receive APE services, and 38 receive additional related services support (e.g., physical therapy, health and nursing, and low incidence disability services). There are seven District-operated preschool SCs, two for severely handicapped students, one for learning handicapped, three for autistic students, and one for students with Asperger s syndrome. The District assigns two 3.75-hour and one six-hour IAs and one medical care technician to the SH SC programs, two threehour IAs to the LH SC, four 5.5-hour and two six-hour IAs to the autism classes, and one 3.5-hour IA to the classroom that serves SWDs identified with Asperger s syndrome. Preschool services often become the expectation for special education service in the K-8 program. Parents are often reluctant to stop a service once it has been initiated. Services for preschool children (3-5 years of age), may be provided in any number of appropriate settings as determined by EC including (a) the regular public or private nonsectarian preschool program, (b) the child development center or family day care home, (c) the child s regular environment that may include the home, (d) a special site where preschool programs for both children with disabilities and children who are not disabled are located close to each other and have the opportunity to share resources and programming, (e) a special education preschool program with children who are not disabled attending and participating for all or part of the program, (f) a public school setting which provides an age appropriate environment, materials, and services, as defined by the superintendant. For information detailing specific caseloads for instructional adults providing group services to special education preschoolers please refer to the following table: Table 14: Preschool Caseload Guidelines Service General Preschool SDC Non-Severe Severely Disabled SDC Autism SLPs exclusively serving Preschool SWDs Caseload 1 adult to 8 children 1 adult to 7 children 1 adult to 5 children 1 adult to 3 children 40 students maximum 22 CCR Teacher- Child Ratios: EC Adult-to-Child Ratios for Preschool Services: EC Definition of "Severely Disabled": EC Maximum Caseload: National Research Council Recommendations The majority of preschool children (98%) receiving special education supports are provided speech as a service. SLI is the primary disability for 70% (236 students) of the preschool students. Fifty-one preschool children were referred for

47 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 47 assessment by parents, 51 were referred by teachers outside the SST process, three were referred by the SST, nine were referred by other district personnel, and 93 were referred by sources outside of the district. Students requiring speech and language support in the district Preschool SDC are served using both a push-in or inclass delivery model and pull-out model. The SLP assigned to that program meets the speech and language needs of all students by working in learning centers, participating in circle time activities, and interacting on the playground and during meal times. Teaching and reinforcing developmentally appropriate language and literacy concepts through the utilization of a variety of complementary activities and in multiple settings is in line with the state guidelines set forth in the California Preschool Learning Foundation and the Desired Results Developmental Profile. The strands of the foundation stress the importance of providing students with exposure to multiple opportunities in order to enhance the development of concrete and symbolic language. The CDE and the California Preschool Instructional Networks at provide additional information and guidelines. For some SWDs who receive speech as their only service, the District may want to consider site-based services. State and federal guidelines emphasize the importance of transitioning SWDs from preschool to kindergarten. Serving students at their home school by the therapist assigned to that site would facilitate this process. It would allow the SLP the flexibility to assist in pre-kindergarten screening, introduce school-based pre-kindergarten curriculum and help the parents to become familiar with the school their child will be attending. Findings and Recommendations: 22. Finding: Currently, 33.6% of preschool SWDs are receiving services in the LRE. Education Code requires that a transdisciplinary team approach be taken when providing special education services to preschool-aged children with disabilities. This calls for consultations with regular preschool teachers, specialists, assessment services, and direct services. It is not specified that special education preschool instructors must be certificated. Recommendation: As with all other programs, to the extent possible, preschool programs should be at the child s home school site or natural environment and be inclusive of non-disabled peers. Preschool LRE Measures dictate that 66% of 3-5 year olds should be served in settings with typically developing peers by As the District moves to provide more inclusive program options, utilizing existing public preschool programs and using classified staff with early childhood certification should be considered. Education Code requires that (a) Services rendered by state and local agencies serving preschool children with exceptional needs and their families shall be provided in coordination with other state and local agencies. Educational agencies offering similar educational services shall coordinate and not duplicate these services. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall identify similar services by other state and local agencies. (b) As the preschool child approaches the age to enter an elementary school environment, the child s preparation shall be geared toward a readiness for kindergarten and later school success. If preschools are state funded, the District and/or agency are obligated to sign a contract with the CDE. The signed contract includes the following assurance, under the general provisions of the contract (R): By signing this contract the contractor assures the CDE that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C et seq.) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. Additionally, Head Start preschool programs are charged with serving preschool SWDs. The specific regulations outlining this obligation are included in the appendices.

48 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 48 Many districts have developed collaborative partnerships between the special education department at the local Head Start and state-run preschools. These types of collaborative models allow for leveraging of resources between programs and provide inclusive opportunities with non-disabled peers. Technical assistance and training for developing collaborative early childhood special education programs is provided at no cost by the Supporting Early Education Delivery Systems (SEEDS) program. The SEEDS program is a project of the CDE and the Sacramento County Office of Education. Information about SEEDS and who to contact is provided in the appendices. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessments were developed as part of the accountability measures under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The purpose of these assessments is to evaluate instructional practices and teaching in classrooms, schools, and districts. With the exception of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), these assessments are not to be used to make high stakes decisions about individual students. The U.S. Department of Education enacted regulations that allowed for alternative assessments for students with disabilities. This allows for 3% of the students assessed as part of the NCLB accountability measure to achieve proficient or above on two assessment measures. In California, these measures are the California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA) and the California Modified Assessment (CMA). Only SWDs are administered these tests, provided that the use of alternative assessments are appropriately included in the IEP document. Escondido Union ESD did not fully utilized the flexibility afforded SWDs in the STAR program. The California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) is a standards-based test for students with cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the California Standards Tests (CSTs). Districts are allowed to have up to 1% of students whose assessment scores on the CAPA count as proficient and advanced in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) calculations. In 2009, the number of students achieving proficient and advanced on the ELA portion of the CAPA was 0.7%. Similarly only 0.5% of students who took the CAPA math obtained scores in the proficient and advanced ranges. The 1.0 percent cap may be exceeded in cases where the LEA provides adequate justification to the state. These justifications include allowances for districts that operate specialized programs and/or have high numbers of SWDs that reside in LCIs and foster homes. It is highly recommended that the District apply for this waiver if the 1% cap is exceeded. The contact person at CDE regarding the application for the exception to the 1.0 percent cap is Meredith Cathcart, Special Education Consultant, in the Assessment, Evaluation, and Support Unit of the Special Education Division. She can be reached at or by at mcathcart@cde.ca.gov. The California Modified Assessment (CMA) is a standards-based test for students with disabilities who have an IEP. Districts are allowed to have 2% of students whose scores on the CMA count as proficient and above toward ELA and math for their AYP. CMA may exceed 2% depending on the percent proficient and above for CAPA (up to 3%). In 2009, 0.2% of SWDs who were administered the CMA obtained a proficient and advanced score on ELA, and 0.1% obtained a proficient and advanced score on mathematics. The District s CMA cap for 2009 was 2.3% for ELA and 2.5% for math. SWDs are represented in all major subgroup categories; therefore their performance on the alternative measures can assist the District toward meeting AYP targets.

49 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 49 In 2009, Escondido did not meet the percent proficient targets (or Annual Measurable Objectives [AMOs]. The proficiency target for ELA was 45% and the target for mathematics was 45.5%. District-wide at or above proficiency was 44.6% and 46.6%, respectively. For the Students with Disabilities sub-group, only 25.3% of students were at or above proficient for ELA and 26.5% were at or above proficient for mathematics. Improving the performance of the subgroups on the CSTs is critical if the District is to move out of PI status. Budget Consideration Federal allocations for special education should primarily be used for classified employees. This provides the District with the advantage of not having to pay the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) reduction. Certificated staff should only be coded to federal dollars if not fully expended on classified salaries. Federal Compliance with Maintenance of Effort Federal law, commonly referred to as Maintenance of Effort (MOE), requires agencies to spend the same level of local and/or State funds on special education as in the preceding fiscal year, in terms of either total or per-capita expenditures (34 CFR ). The law allows school agencies to reduce special education expenditures below the required level if the reduction can be attributed to: 1. The departure of special education personnel, either voluntarily or for just cause, who are replaced by qualified, lower-cost personnel. 2. A decrease in the enrollment of children with disabilities. 3. The termination of the obligation of the agency to provide a program of special education to a particular child with disability that is an exceptionally costly program because the child: Has left the jurisdiction of the agency; Has reached the age at which the obligation of the agency to provide FAPE to the child has terminated; or No longer needs the program of special education 4. The termination of costly expenditures for long-term purchases, such as facilities acquisition of equipment or the construction of school facilities. The following MOE exceptions are allowable: As the District places a renewed focus on the Student Study Team (SST) process and Response to Intervention (RTI), fewer students should require special education interventions. As the District assumes program responsibilities that were previously provided by other entities, i.e., NPS and NPA, program costs will decrease. The Local Plan must specify the respective roles of the SELPA Administrator and the individual LEA s in the monitoring of the appropriate use of federal, state, and local funds allocated for special education programs [Ref: EC (a), (12), (D), (ii), (IV)].

50 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s R e v i e w a n d A n a l y s i s 50 Concluding Thoughts Again, SI&A reviewers were not engaged to, and did not conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the overall procedures over the District s special education program. Accordingly, no such opinion was expressed. Had additional procedures been performed, other matters might have come to the reviewer s attention that would have been reported to the District. Thank you for the opportunity to work with your District in the goal of decreasing special education costs while maintaining program integrity and achievement. Implementing the recommendations included in the report (see Confidential Attachment on the following page for a quick summary) will still provide essential and important program resources, yet result in overall cost reduction. Consideration of the program recommendations may improve overall student performance.

51 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s a n d A n a l y s i s P a g e 51 Confidential Attachment Finding Proposal Staffing Reductions Amount FY Reduction of one ED SDC Program Adjust staffing ratios at specific school sites Blend or reduce SCs to even caseloads 1 FTE and hour IA 3 FTE teachers, 2 6- hour IAs and hour IAs $87,772 $230,399 $337, Reduce IA assignment time and adjust hours to match $424,612 student instruction time 15 Eliminate SLP IAs $116, Increase psychologists 3.76 FTE ($296,634) 21 Reduce Autism SC IA staff $123,804 Total Estimated Reductions With additional Psych Without additional Psych $1,023,591 $1,320,225 Advisory: When considering the recommendations or combinations of recommendations to implement, the district must consider its required MOE obligations. Should the district fall below the previous year s spending levels, the district may open itself up to penalties. Other areas for consideration: 1. Use categorical money to multi-fund support staff positions. 2. Include resource room programs to support underperforming students. 3. Develop integrated preschool program. Proposed Savings: TBD

52 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s a n d A n a l y s i s 52

53 P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s a n d A n a l y s i s 53 Section 3: Appendix

54 A p p e n d i x 54

55 A p p e n d i x 55 List of Acronyms ASD Autism Spectrum Disorders SAI Specialized Academic Instruction BLI/VI Blind/Visually Impaired SD Severely Disabled CAPA CASEMIS CBEDS CDE CMA CSTs DHH DIS EC ED EL FAPE FTE California Alternative Performance Assessment California Special Education Management Info System California Basic Educational Data Systems California Department of Education California Modified Assessment California Standards Tests Deaf/Hard of Hearing Designated Instruction and Services Education Code US Department of Education English Learners Free Appropriate Public Education Full-Time Equivalent SDC SED SEEDS SELPA SH SLD SLI SLP SPED SST STAR SWD SWP VI Special Day Class CDE Special Education Department Supporting Early Education Delivery Systems Special Education Local Plan Area Severely Handicapped Specific Learning Disability Speech Language Impaired Speech and Language Pathologist Special Education Student Success Team Standardized Testing and Reporting Students with Disabilities School-wide Programs Visually Impaired IA Instructional Assistant IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IEP Individualized Education Program LC Learning Center LH Learning Handicapped LRE Least Restrictive Environment MOE Maintenance of Effort NASP National Assn. of School Psychologists NCLB No Child Left Behind NPA Nonpublic Agency NPS Nonpublic School OSEP Office of Special Education OT Occupational Therapist PLC Professional Learning Community PT Physical Therapy RSP Resource Specialist Program RtI Response to Intervention SACS Standardized Account Code Structure

56 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 1 of 5 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

57 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 2 of 5 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

58 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 3 of 5 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

59 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 4 of 5 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

60 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 5 of 5 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

61 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 1 of 6 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

62 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 2 of 6 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

63 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 3 of 6 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

64 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 4 of 6 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

65 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 5 of 6 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

66 A p p e n d i x District Special Education Annual Performance Report Page 6 of 6 Note: District Annual Performance Report Measures are taken from CDE website and format cannot be altered.

67 A p p e n d i x 67 Special Education Transportation Guidelines Guidelines for use by Individualized Education Program (IEP) Teams when determining required transportation services. Source: California Department of Education ( California Education Code (EC) citations, including Code content, and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citations have been updated to reflect changes since October Changes made in April 2010, are noted by italics (does not apply to codes or code acronyms). Preface EC Section (Assembly Bill 876 [Canella], Chapter 283, Statutes of 1991), required the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) to develop special education transportation guidelines for use by individualized education program (IEP) teams that clarify when special education services are required. The State Board of Education, Advisory Commission on Special Education, Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Administrators, Special Education Administrators of County Offices (SEACO), Protection & Advocacy, Inc., Team of Advocates for Special Kids (TASK), school districts, County Offices of Education (COE), transportation offices, California Department of Education staff and other interested parties provided valuable contributions to the development of the 1993 Guidelines For Use By Individualized Education Program (IEP) Teams When Determining Required Transportation Services. The guidelines should be utilized to plan and implement transportation services to pupils that require this service to benefit from special education instruction and/or related services. Introduction EC Section states: "Every individual with exceptional needs, who is eligible to receive special education instruction and related services under this part [ Part 30 ] shall receive that instruction and those services at no cost to his or her parents or, as appropriate, to him or her." Special education transportation is defined in federal regulation [34 CFR Section (c)(16 )] as a related service. Transportation is required to be provided if it is necessary for the student to benefit from special education instruction. In addition, as required for any special education program, the service must be provided to meet the criteria for a free, appropriate public education as defined in federal regulation 34 CFR Section EC Section (Assembly Bill 876 (Canella), Chapter 283, Statutes of 1991), required that the SSPI develop special education transportation guidelines for use by IEP teams that clarify "when special education services, as defined by EC Section 41850, are required." EC 41850(d) defines "special education transportation" as: "The transportation of severely disabled special day class pupils, and orthopedically impaired pupils who require a vehicle with a wheelchair lift, who received transportation in the prior fiscal year, as specified in their individualized education program.

68 A p p e n d i x 68 "A vehicle that was used to transport special education pupils." EC 41850(b) (5) defines "home-to-school transportation services" for pupils with exceptional needs as: "The transportation of individuals with exceptional needs as specified in their individualized education programs, who do not receive special education transportation as defined in subdivision (d)" Examples that IEP teams may consider under EC 41850(b) include pupils with severe disabilities who are not placed in special day classes or otherwise enrolled in programs serving pupils with profound disabilities, pupils with orthopedic disabilities who do not use wheelchairs or require lifts, students beginning special education who did not receive transportation under an IEP in the prior fiscal year, pupils with other health impairments, learning disabilities or other cognitive disabilities, or pupils who live beyond reasonable distance to their school and would not, without transportation, have access to appropriate special education instruction and related services at no cost. Considerations for Use by Local Education Agencies, Special Education Local Plan Areas, County Offices of Education and/or Transportation Cooperatives It is recommended that these issues and concepts be taken under consideration by all LEAs, SELPAs, COEs and/or transportation cooperatives that provide any special education transportation in preparation for organizing a transportation system and providing services that will allow for students' placement in the least restrictive environment while also allowing for the most cost-effective special education transportation system. Transportation Policies Each LEA providing special education is required to adopt policies for the programs and services it operates, consistent with agreements with other districts or county offices and/or agreements stated as part of the local plan for special education (EC ). These policies describe how special education transportation is coordinated with regular hometo-school transportation and set forth criteria for meeting the transportation needs of pupils receiving special education (EC (b)(5)). It is recommended these policies focus upon pupil needs as the primary consideration for determining transportation services and that these policies also address the needs of pupils who may be eligible for transportation services as required by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504. Delivery of Services Districts/SELPAs/COEs responsible for implementation of IEPs should be knowledgeable of transportation policies and/or procedures that address the responsibilities of the IEP team in regard to transportation and the delivery of services to eligible students in their least restrictive environment. This includes consideration of services that are provided in the setting appropriate to the needs of the student at the pupil's neighborhood school, or within the district or SELPA; regional and/or magnet programs and services may also be appropriate to the needs of the pupil. Consideration should be taken regarding the effect that the location of a placement will have on the length of time that a student has to or from school each day. Placements should not be made solely on a "space available" basis. If a student is receiving services outside of his/her residence area, the

69 A p p e n d i x 69 placement should be reviewed at least annually in order to determine if a placement closer to the student's residence would be appropriate. Location of Programs, Placement of Pupils The efficiency of a transportation system for special education is partially dependent on the location of the program sites and the placements of students. A demographic and geographic review that analyzes the present locations of programs, program needs, and population served should take place. Program service regions with clearly defined service areas can then be established, using residence areas of the neighborhood schools. While this also involves the issue of available facilities, a mission statement and policies developed by the agency may promote the comprehensive commitment to all pupils and the acceptance of pupils with exceptional needs in a broad variety of settings. Additional Policy Considerations Other subjects that need policy and procedure directives may include control of pupil medicine transported between home and school on a vehicle; student suspension; physical intervention and management; authority to use special harnesses, vest, and belts; early closing of school due to inclement weather or other emergencies; authority to operate special equipment; when no adult is home to receive pupils; when and how to involve community emergency medical and/or law enforcement personnel; use of mobility aides; control and management of confidential information; use of bus aides; and other. Coordination of Calendars and Schedules Coordination of student attendance calendars at all school sites that provide special education services is necessary to fully utilize transportation services and to minimize the number of required days of transportation service. In unified districts, multi-track districts, multi-district SELPAs, COEs and/or in transportation cooperatives, standardization of calendars should include the coordination of starting and ending dates of school years, bell schedules (starting and ending times), vacation/intersession breaks, staff development days (School Improvement Program, School Based Coordinated Program, other), minimum day schedules, etc. This coordination should be done so that all significant transportation implications are addresses and transportation resources are effectively utilized. Length of School Day, Related Services, Extracurricular Events It should be noted that the use of alternative starting times for all special education students at a site can lead to program compliance concerns. Pupils receiving special education and related services must be provided with an educational program in accordance with their IEP for at least the same length of time as the regular school day for their chronological peer group, unless otherwise stated in a student's IEP. In addition, there may be occasions where the needs of the pupil require receiving therapy or some other related service that cannot be provided during the "established" school day. If provisions for "early" or "late" transportation are made for pupils within the general education program due to extracurricular events, provisions for equal opportunity to these events for pupils with exceptional needs who require special transportation must also be made.

70 A p p e n d i x 70 Use of Policy and Resource Information An overview of all available transportation resources should be provided to all administrators, IEP team leaders/case managers or chairpersons and other IEP team members who are authorized to recommend the type of special education service and the location where the service will be provided. Guidelines For Use By The Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team Local Education Agency Rules and Policies All pupils, including those receiving specialized instruction and services, are subject to the rules and policies governing regular transportation offerings within the local education agency, unless the specific needs of the eligible pupil or the location of the special education program/service dictate that special education transportation is required. Primary Consideration: Pupil Needs The specific needs of the pupil must be the primary consideration when an IEP team is determining any transportation needs. These may include, but are not limited to: 1. Medical diagnosis and health needs consideration of whether long bus rides could affect a certain pupil's health (duration, temperature control, need for services, health emergencies); general ability and/or strength to ambulate/wheel; approximate distance from school or the distance needed to walk or wheel oneself to the school; consideration of pupil needs in inclement or very hot weather, other. 2. Physical accessibility of curbs, sidewalks, streets, and public transportation systems. 3. Pupil capacity consideration of a pupil's capacity to arrive at school on time, to avoid getting lost, to avoid dangerous traffic situations, and to avoid other potentially dangerous or exploitative situations on the way to and from school. 4. Behavioral Intervention Plans (Title 5, CCR 3001 (g) specified by the pupil's IEP and consideration of how to implement such plans while a pupil is being transported. 5. Other transportation needs mid-day or other transportation needs as required on a pupil's IEP (for example, occupational or physical therapy or mental health services at another site, community based classes, etc.) must also be taken into consideration when the IEP team discusses a pupil's placement and transportation needs. 6. Extended school year services, pursuant to EC Section 56345(b)(3), should be another consideration of a pupil s need for transportation if considered necessary to provide a free appropriate public education as specified in a pupil s IEP. Transportation Staff and IEP Team Meetings Effective practice requires that procedures are developed for communication with transportation personnel and that transportation staff are present at IEP team meetings when the pupil needs the use of adaptive or assistive equipment, when school bus equipment is required to be modified, when the pupil exhibits severe behavioral difficulties and a behavior intervention plan is to be implemented, when the pupil is medically fragile and requires special assistance, and/or when the pupil has other unique needs.

71 A p p e n d i x 71 Transportation Options Considering the identified needs of the pupil, transportation options may include, but not be limited to: walking, riding the regular school bus, utilizing available public transportation (any out-of-pocket costs to the pupil or parents are reimbursed by the local education agency), riding a special bus from a pick up point, and portal-to-portal special education transportation via a school bus, taxi, reimbursed parent's driving with a parent's voluntary participation, or other mode as determined by the IEP team. When developing specific IEP goals and objectives related to the pupil's use of public transportation, the IEP team may wish to consider a blend of transportation services as the pupil's needs evolve. Specialized transportation as a related service must be written on the pupil's IEP with specificity and should be approved by the transportation administrator. It is recommended that services be described in sufficient enough detail to inform the parties of how, when and from where to where transportation will be provided and, where arrangements for the reimbursement of parents are required, the amount and frequency of reimbursement. Suspension from the School Bus Occasionally pupils receiving special education services are suspended from bus transportation (EC , Grounds for Suspension). The suspension of a pupil receiving special education services from California transportation can constitute a significant change of placement if the district: 1) has been transporting the student; 2) suspends the student from transportation as a disciplinary measure; and 3) does not provide another mode of transportation (Office of Civil Rights, Letter of Finding Complaint No , December 8, 1989). A significant change in placement requires a meeting of the IEP team to review the pupil's IEP. During the period of any exclusion from bus transportation, pupils must be provided with an alternative form of transportation at no cost to the pupil or parent in order to be assured of having access to the required special education instruction and services (EC ). EC (c) reads: "If an individual with exceptional needs is excluded from school bus transportation, the pupil is entitled to be provided with an alternative form of transportation at no cost to the pupil or parent or guardian provided that transportation is specified in the pupil's individualized education program." (AB 1859, Chapter 492, Statutes of Effective 01/01/2003.) Summary The LEA providing special education is required to adopt policies for the programs and services it operates, consistent with agreements with other districts or county offices stated as part of the local plan for special education. These policies describe how special education transportation is coordinated with regular home-to-school transportation and set forth criteria that are consistent with these Guidelines for meeting the transportation needs of pupils receiving special education. These policies and an overview of all available transportation resources should be provided to all administrators, IEP team leaders/case managers/chairpersons and other IEP team members who are authorized to recommend the type of special education service and the location where the service will be provided.

72 A p p e n d i x 72 The specific needs of the pupil must be the primary consideration when an IEP team is determining transportation services. It is often beneficial to have transportation staff presents at IEP team meetings. The combination of planning and providing information to IEP teams maximizes appropriate placements and efficient cost-effective transportation systems. Notice The guidance in the Special Education Transportation Guidelines is not binding on local education agencies (LEAs) or other entities. Except for the statutes, regulations, and court decisions that are referenced herein, the Guidelines are exemplary and compliance is not mandatory. (EC Section )

73 A p p e n d i x 73 Questions and Answers on Serving Children with Disabilities Eligible for Transportation November 2009 Regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2006, and became effective on October 13, Additional regulations were published on December 1, 2008 and became effective on December 31, Since publication of the regulations, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has received requests for clarification of some of these regulations. This is one of a series of question and answer (Q&A) documents prepared by OSERS to address some of the most important issues raised by requests for clarification on a variety of high-interest topics. Each Q&A document will be updated to add new questions and answers as important issues arise or to amend existing questions and answers as needed. OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), parents, advocacy organizations, and other interested parties with information regarding the requirements for serving children with disabilities eligible for transportation. This Q&A document represents the Department s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations. The IDEA and its implementing regulations continue to address the transportation needs of children with disabilities. Transportation is a related service as defined by 34 CFR (c)(16) of the IDEA regulations and can include travel to and from school and between schools; travel in and around school buildings; and specialized equipment such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps. A child s individualized education program (IEP) Team is responsible for determining both if transportation is required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education and related services, and how the transportation services should be implemented. The IDEA and the implementing regulations also include travel training in the definition of special education. Travel training is instruction that enables children with disabilities to develop an awareness of the environment in which they live, and to learn the skills necessary to move effectively and safely from place to place within that environment. Both transportation and travel training are important services IEP Teams should continue to consider when they plan for a child s postsecondary transition needs. Generally, the questions, and corresponding answers, presented in this Q&A document required interpretation of the IDEA and its implementing regulations and the answers are not simply a restatement of the statutory or regulatory requirements. The responses presented in this document generally are informal guidance representing the interpretation of the Department of the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the context of the specific facts presented and are not legally binding. The Q&As in this document are not intended to be a replacement for careful study of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. The IDEA, its implementing regulations, and other important documents related to the IDEA and the regulations are found at If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please your comments to: OSERSguidancecomments@ed.gov and include Transportation in the subject of your or write us at the following address: Patricia Guard, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, th Street, SW, room 4108, Washington, DC

74 A p p e n d i x 74 Table of Contents A. General A-1 What transportation services are available for students eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA? A-2 Who determines whether transportation services are required and how those services should be implemented? A-3 If a child s IEP identifies transportation as a related service to be provided to the child, what are strategies that can be used to provide that service? A-4 Do the transportation provisions in 34 CFR (c)(16) mean that an LEA is responsible for transporting children with disabilities to and from the locations where the students receive special education and related services, even if the LEA has to redirect the transportation routes or provide an aide for safety? B. Duration of Travel and Time on Learning B-1 If a child with a disability spends a significant amount of time being transported to and from school, as well as to and from another location to receive special education and related services, is the child entitled to receive additional school time to make up for the time lost in transportation? C. Vehicle Requirements C-1 When does the IDEA require climate-controlled transportation for children with disabilities? D. Confidentiality D-1 What information should an LEA give to school bus drivers to ensure that the drivers understand the confidentiality protections of children who are transported? E. Right to Transportation Outside of Normal School Hours E-1 When does a child with a disability have a right to transportation to and from school- related activities that occur outside of normal school hours, such as community service activities that are required by the school? F. Children in Preschools F-1 When is an LEA obligated to provide transportation for a preschool child with a disability between private day care and the child s preschool? G. Reimbursement G-1 Must an LEA provide appropriate information and assistance to the parents of a child with a disability who are seeking reimbursement for mileage expenses for transportation the IEP Team included in the child s IEP?

75 A p p e n d i x 75 H. Discipline H-1 If transportation is included in the IEP for a child with a disability who has documented behavioral concerns on the bus, but not at school, when may a school district suspend the child from the bus for behavioral issues and not provide some other form of transportation to and from school?

76 A p p e n d i x 76 A. GENERAL Authority: Transportation is included as a related service under the regulations in 34 CFR (a) and (c)(16). Travel training is included in the definition of special education in 34 CFR (a)(2)(ii), and is specifically defined in (b)(4). Question A-1: What transportation services are available for students eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA? Answer: Transportation is a related service and is defined in 34 CFR (c)(16). Transportation includes travel to and from school and between schools; travel in and around school buildings; and specialized equipment such as special or adapted buses, lifts and ramps, if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability. Question A-2: Who determines whether transportation services are required and how those services should be implemented? Answer: The IEP Team is responsible for determining if transportation is required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education and related services, and how the transportation services should be implemented. The IEP should describe the transportation services to be provided, including transportation to enable a child with disabilities to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities in the manner necessary to afford the child an equal opportunity for participation in those services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. 34 CFR and The IDEA does not require LEAs to transport children with disabilities in separate vehicles, isolated from their peers. In fact, many children with disabilities can receive the same transportation provided to non-disabled children, consistent with the least restrictive environment requirements in 34 CFR through Additionally, special education can include travel training. Travel training is instruction that enables children with significant cognitive disabilities, and any other children with disabilities who require this instruction, to develop an awareness of the environment in which they live, and to learn the skills necessary to move effectively and safely from place to place within that environment. 34 CFR (a)(2)(ii) and (b)(4). These services can be a fundamental component of the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that will assist children in preparing for employment and independent living in their communities. Therefore, IEP Teams should consider the need for both transportation and travel training when planning for a child s postsecondary transition needs. The Federal Transit Administration funds and Easter Seals administers Project ACTION (Accessible Community Transportation in Our Nation), a national technical assistance center on accessible transportation, which provides training for schools, parents, and other service providers on the implementation of travel training ( ). Question A-3: If a child s IEP identifies transportation as a related service to be provided to the child, what are strategies that can be used to provide that service? Answer: Transportation as a related service may be provided through a variety of strategies. A child s IEP Team

77 A p p e n d i x 77 should consider the strategies that are most appropriate given each individual child s disability and needs. The following examples of appropriate strategies may be helpful when IEP Teams consider how to provide transportation for children with disabilities: 1. Expanding the Ridership of Small Bus Routes and Integrating Children with Disabilities into General Education Bus Routes. School districts often provide door-to-door service for children with disabilities in a small bus vehicle that is separate from the school transportation used for other students. While this might be an appropriate strategy for supporting some children with disabilities, districts should explore options for integrating children with disabilities with nondisabled students, especially when the children with disabilities are in the same location and have the same schedule as children without disabilities. This option may require the utilization of a liftequipped vehicle for the regular routes or the addition of a monitor or aide. 2. Using Aides on Buses. Many children with disabilities are able to ride the regular school bus with support provided by an aide who may be an instructional assistant or volunteer, based on State and local policy. Some LEAs also use other students to provide this service through a buddy system, based on State and local policy. 3. Bus Stop Monitors. For students who may need assistance with going to the bus stop or waiting at the bus stop independently, adding a bus stop monitor can be considered. Based on State and local policy, bus stop monitor positions may be filled by parents or community volunteers. Bus stop monitors will facilitate safe travel for all students. 4. Positive Behavioral Support. Recognizing that the school day begins at the bus stop is an important first step to ensuring that all students have a safe and positive experience. Many schools implement positive behavioral support programs that include the integration of behavioral strategies on the bus. Question A-4: Do the transportation provisions in 34 CFR (c)(16) mean that an LEA is responsible for transporting children with disabilities to and from the locations where the students receive special education and related services, even if the LEA has to redirect the transportation routes or provide an aide for safety? Answer: Yes. If an IEP Team determines that a child with a disability requires special transportation arrangements or accommodations, including an aide for safety, the LEA must provide these services. B. DURATION OF TRAVEL AND TIME ON LEARNING Authority: The term school day is defined in the regulations in 34 CFR (c). Question B-1: If a child with a disability spends a significant amount of time being transported to and from school, as well as to and from another location to receive special education and related services, is the child entitled to receive additional school time to make up for the time lost in transportation? Answer: Neither Part B of the IDEA nor the regulations address the issue of the length of a school day. Determining the length of a school day is a decision left to the SEA. However, the IDEA defines school day as any day, including a

78 A p p e n d i x 78 partial day, which children are in attendance at school for instructional purposes. Additionally, school day has the same meaning for all children in school, including both those with and without disabilities. In general, a school day for a child with a disability should not be longer or shorter than a school day for general education students. However, if a child s IEP Team determines a child needs a shorter or extended school day in order to receive FAPE, then appropriate modifications should be incorporated into the IEP. However, these modifications must be based on the unique needs of the child, as determined by the IEP team, and not solely based on the child s transportation time. C. VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS Authority: Transportation is included as a related service under the regulations in 34 CFR (a) and (c)(16). Question C-1: When does the IDEA require climate-controlled transportation for children with disabilities? Answer: Climate-controlled transportation is not explicitly required under the IDEA. However, if an IEP team determines that a child needs climate- controlled transportation to receive special education services, related services, or both, and the child s IEP specifies that such transportation is necessary, the LEA must provide this special transportation at no cost to the parents. Similarly, climate-controlled transportation is not required under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 504) unless a child with a disability has an identified need for this transportation. See 34 CFR Part 104. However, the transportation of nondisabled children in climate-controlled buses, while children with disabilities are transported in separate buses that are not climate- controlled, might raise issues of disability discrimination under Section 504. D. CONFIDENTIALITY Authority: Transportation is included as a related service under the regulations in 34 CFR (a) and (c)(16). Question D-1: What information should an LEA give to school bus drivers to ensure that the drivers understand the confidentiality protections of children who are transported? Answer: Each person, including a school bus driver, who collects or uses personally identifiable information concerning a child with a disability, must receive training or instruction about the State s policies and procedures protecting the confidentiality of such information under 34 CFR and 34 CFR part 99. Transportation providers play an integral role in the school lives of many children, including children with disabilities. Effective communication between schools and transportation providers is essential, including communication about transportation needs and potential problems of children with disabilities. To the extent appropriate, school personnel in LEAs should ensure that school bus drivers or other transportation providers are well informed about protecting the confidentiality of student information related to (1) the special needs of individual children with disabilities who ride on school buses with their general education peers, and (2) possible strategies and assistance that may be available to drivers (including the use of aides on buses).

79 A p p e n d i x 79 E. RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OUTSIDE OF NORMAL SCHOOL HOURS Authority: Transportation is included as a related service under the regulations at 34 CFR (a) and (c)(16). Question E-1: When does a child with a disability have a right to transportation to and from schoolrelated activities that occur outside of normal school hours, such as community service activities that are required by the school? Answer: When a child with a disability has a right to transportation to and from school-related activities that occur outside of normal school hours depends on whether the IEP Team has included transportation as a related service in the child s IEP to enable the child to benefit from special education and related services. If the IEP Team has made that determination, then it should include transportation for required after-school activities, such as community service activities that are required by the school, as well as for activities necessary to afford the child an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities. F. CHILDREN IN PRESCHOOLS Authority: Transportation is included as a related service under the regulations in 34 CFR (a) and (c)(16). Question F-1: When is an LEA obligated to provide transportation for a preschool child with a disability between private day care and the child s preschool? Answer: If the IEP Team determines that transportation is required to assist the preschool child to benefit from special education, and includes transportation as a related service on the child s IEP, the LEA would be responsible for providing the transportation to and from the setting where the special education and related services are provided. G. REIMBURSEMENT Authority: Transportation is included as a related service under the regulations in 34 CFR (a) and (c)(16). Question G-1: Must an LEA provide appropriate information and assistance to the parents of a child with a disability who are seeking reimbursement for mileage expenses for transportation the IEP Team included in the child s IEP? Answer: Yes. If a child with a disability is receiving special education and related services and transportation is included in the child s IEP, the LEA must provide assistance needed by the parents to be reimbursed in a timely manner for the costs incurred in providing transportation. H. DISCIPLINE Authority: Transportation is included as a related service under the regulations in 34 CFR (a) and (c)(1). Discipline procedures are found in the regulations in 34 CFR through

80 A p p e n d i x 80 Question H-1: If transportation is included in the IEP for a child with a disability who has documented behavioral concerns on the bus, but not at school, when may a school district suspend the child from the bus for behavioral issues and not provide some other form of transportation to and from school? Answer: If transportation is included in the child s IEP, a bus suspension must be treated as a suspension under 34 CFR and all of the discipline procedures applicable to children with disabilities would apply. An LEA is not required to provide alternative transportation to a child with a disability who has been suspended from transportation for 10 school days or less unless the LEA provides alternative transportation to children without disabilities who have been similarly suspended from bus service. 34 CFR (d)(3). If a child with a disability is suspended from transportation for more than 10 school days in the same school year, and transportation is included in the child s IEP, during any subsequent suspensions the LEA must provide services to the child to the extent required in 34 CFR (d). Generally, this means that the child must (1) continue to receive educational services so as to enable the child to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the child s IEP, and (2) receive as appropriate a functional behavioral assessment, and behavioral intervention services and modifications that are designed to address the behavior violation(s) so that they do not recur. Additionally, the suspension of a student with a disability from transportation may constitute a change of placement if a district has been transporting the student, suspends the student from the transportation as a disciplinary measure, and provides no other form of transportation. If a student is suspended from transportation for more than 10 consecutive school days, or is repeatedly suspended, and such suspensions constitute a pattern under 34 CFR (a)(2), a change of placement has occurred. In such situations, the LEA, parent, and relevant members of the IEP Team must determine whether the conduct was a manifestation of the child s disability, using the process described in 34 CFR (e). If the conduct is a manifestation of the child s disability, the IEP Team must take the steps outlined in 34 CFR (f)(1), and also must return the child to the placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavioral intervention plan. 34 CFR (f). Regardless of the procedures discussed above, school personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days without regard to whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child s disability, if the child has taken any of the actions specified in 34 CFR (g) regarding weapons, illegal drugs, or the infliction of serious bodily injury.

81 A p p e n d i x 81 Transportation Continuum For Students With Disabilities The individualized education program team shall review the assessment results, determine eligibility, determine the content of the individualized education program, consider local transportation policies and criteria and make program placement recommendations [Education Code (a)]. Some students may walk to school while other students may require a vehicle with a wheelchair lift. The following Transportation Continuum for Students with Disabilities has been developed to address the least restrictive to the most restrictive travel arrangements to and from school. 1. The IEP team determines eligibility for special transportation and makes recommendations based on the level of service required by the students. 2. It is the parent s responsibility to monitor their child and ensure safe and timely arrival at the scheduled stop. 3. Student pickup or release will not be made on private property or at a location determined to be unsafe. The students will not be picked up or delivered to a cul-de-sac which requires the bus to back up or any location with unsafe road conditions. 4. Students will only be released from the bus to an authorized parent, guardian, care provider, or other person as designated on the student transportation release form on file with the transportation provider. 5. A student who is not met by an authorized person as identified on the release form (4) above will be taken to a designated location or law enforcement office. 6. If the parent has a concern about transportation arrangements and requests a review, they must contact the Special Education Administrator or designee.

82 A p p e n d i x 82 Transportation Continuum For Students With Disabilities Least Restrictive Walk to School Rides Regular Bus (Big Yellow) Parent Transport w/ Reimbursement Rides Special Bus (Little Yellow) Special Bus Attendant * It is assumed that some students will require a bus with wheelchair access Student Transported Alone Most Restrictive Student Transported Alone w/ Attendent Existing Stop Corner Pick-Up Home Pick-Up at Curb Home/Pick-Up Institution

83 A p p e n d i x 83 What Is A School Psychologist?

84 A p p e n d i x 84

85 A p p e n d i x 85

86 A p p e n d i x 86 Supporting Early Education Delivery Systems (SEEDS)

87 A p p e n d i x 87