A Clinical and Educational. Services Analysis. for the. Guilford Public Schools

Transcription

1 A Clinical and Educational Services Analysis for the Guilford Public Schools

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The leadership of the Guilford Public Schools commissioned this comprehensive review of specific areas within the domain of its special education program. A clinical and educational services analysis (CESA), which contains a proprietary methodology that triangulates information gleaned from qualitative sources, quantitative analyses, and established benchmarks with respect to school-based practices, was utilized to achieve this broad operational objective. More specifically, the qualitative analyses was comprised of: (1) a series of interviews or surveys with related service providers, special educators, paraprofessionals, administrators, and parents; (2) a review of educational documents (i.e., IEPs) to ascertain the effectiveness of educational-therapeutic interventions; (3) site visits to District and select out- of-district programs; and (4) an understanding of how special education services are delivered to students in reference to best practices, student outcomes, and least restrictive environments. Quantitative analyses included: (1) multidimensional descriptive statistical analyses of the District s instructional, related services, and support personnel in reference to staffing configurations, workloads, service delivery models, and programmatic trends; (2) a review of the current structure of the Pupil Services Department in reference to staff support, community outreach, and organizational effectiveness; and (3) a financial review relating to the provision of special education services. The over-riding questions and corresponding primary findings included the following: 1) To what extent are the organizational structures effective and efficient in meeting special education student needs? The District has a strong group of principals to support the special education programs within their schools and parents are appreciative of the supports their children receive as a result of efforts at the school level. Greater outreach of the PPS team to the community and the schools was identified as being a need area, especially in view of the culture of parental expectation within the District. 2) To what extent are the Guilford Public Schools processes effective and efficient? In general GPS is doing a good job in identifying and supporting students with disabilities with respect to legal, programmatic, and educational considerations. Early intervening-tiered interventions need to be strengthened to support all learners and to change the belief that the IEP is the only game in town. 2

3 3) To what extent is the communication with stakeholders effective in meeting special education student needs? The perception of communication from the PPS department to stakeholders is variable, and requires attention at both the local (school) and community level. 4) To what extent is Guilford Public Schools meeting and/or exceeding compliance with applicable state and federal guidelines for educating special education students? The services students receive are generally in keeping with the legal mandates of a Free Appropriate Public Education, but these are exceeded in many cases due to subjective variables at the PPT table. With respect to Least Restrictive Environment, in-district programs ensure students are included with general education to the greatest extent possible. An absence of systematic exit and entry criteria, which makes uniform, datadriven, and systematic decisions difficult for PPT teams. 5) To what extent does Guilford Public Schools positively impact the learning of special education students? The District is commended for its commitment to inclusionary practices (including co-teaching) and culture of ownership Greater student outcomes can be realized with increased focus on differentiated instruction, IEP alignment, RTI, and co-teaching. 6) To what extent are resources allocated effectively to meet the needs of Guilford Public Schools students requiring special education services? The costs associated with special education are high in consideration of comparisons to the District s District Reference Group with respect and its own historical trends. Using a benchmarking process, the numbers of S-LPs and paraprofessionals are very high, and behavioral health providers (encompassing social work, psychology, and guidance) are at levels that are higher than expected. Alternatively, the numbers of special education teachers, OTs, PT, are lower than expected levels. 7) To what extent could Guilford Public Schools benefit from an in-house program? 3

4 Costs associated with out-of-district placements (ODPs) as a ratio of dollars spent for each eligible special education student is the highest in its demographic group. Reducing students in ODPs and those receiving instruction in outside programs can be addressed by changing cultural expectations and improving internal capacity. GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS PPS: Pupil Personnel Services PPT: Planning and Placement Team IEP: Individualized Education Program SRBI: Scientific-Research Based Interventions RtI: Response to Intervention LRE: Least Restrictive Environment FAPE: Free Appropriate Public Education PD: Professional Development FTE: Full-time equivalent S-LP: Speech-Language Pathologist or speech-language pathology services OT: Occupational Therapist or occupational therapy services PT: Physical Therapist or physical therapy services ODP: Out of District Placements Effectiveness: The degree to which the services under review promote optimal educational outcomes and student access to the curriculum Efficiency: The degree to which the special education services and personnel under review are responsibly, uniformly, and optimally utilized 4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...6 Cultural, Staff, and Procedural Considerations...6 Programmatic Review...9 Financial Considerations...14 Summary and Final Commentary...17 Acknowledgements...19 Sources and References...19 Appendices

6 INTRODUCTION: METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION As mutually agreed upon between Futures Education and the leadership of the Guilford Public Schools (hereafter, referred to as GPS or the District), the purpose of this analysis is to describe, analyze, and provide recommendations to improve specific aspects of its special education delivery system. As agreed to in the Response for Proposal, the methodology entailed a review of educational documents (i.e., Individualized Education Programs, previously completed focus groups summaries and parent surveys), descriptive and inferential statistical analyses, site visits, and confidential interviews with a representative number of stakeholders comprising special educators, general educators, administrators (central-office and school-level), related service providers, paraprofessionals, and parents that allowed for a variety of perspectives. Therefore, the results that are reported within this document represent recurring themes from the interviews (outlying comments were not included as part of the primary findings) coupled with quantitative data. For clarity of presentation, and because many of the content areas are in effect addressing similar constructs, the report is organized into the following sections: Cultural, Staff, and Procedural Considerations; Programmmatic Review; and Fiscal Considerations. For each section, Primary Findings are followed by Recommendations. The document concludes with Summary and Final Commentary in consideration of the global and systemic issues of programmatic effectiveness and fiscal viability. CULTURAL, STAFF SUPPORT, AND PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS KEY FINDINGS District and local leadership are to be commended for fostering a culture that all students are our students. Although there may be some lingering attitudes of a division between special and general education, also known as a silo effect, the institution of the Scientific-Research Based Intervention (SRBI) and co-teaching practices across the District have fostered increased cooperation, collegiality, and mutual purpose among all staff members. It was the perception among several interviewees that the culture of joint ownership of all students is particularly strong at the elementary schools. There is generally high morale and mutual regard among both regular and special education staff, and in their collective confidence in the District s ability to provide its students with a quality education. However, much of the current interventions employed in the field appear to have been the result of a tight-knit community of 6

7 administrators, educators, and service providers that have found internal solutions. The school district administration encourages schools to collaborate with the Department of Pupil Services, its own staff members, and others across the District to identify internal resources to address unique needs. The level of parental satisfaction with the special education program is inconsistent, and varies widely from parent to parent. In general, overall parental satisfaction was corroborated by an analysis of their responses to a survey that was conducted as part of this analysis. As of this writing, 71 parents responded to these questions, with the modal response being Strongly Agree (i.e., the highest possible score along a scale of 1 to 5) to the five core questions. The reader is referred to Appendix A for a complete accounting of the parent survey. An analysis of the responses that indicated gratification with their child s services suggests that parents were most appreciative of the supports provided by staff within the schools. Thus, consistent with the previous entry, the efforts, talents, and dedication of those in the trenches are recognized as being the most notable part of the program. Despite the prevailing belief among parents that the District is providing students with meaningful educational experiences and interventions, there is a group of parents within the District who are displeased. In an editorial note, it is not unusual to encounter a group of parents - typically of students with more intensive needs - who are relatively vociferous in their expectations of what the district should be providing to their children. However, this cadre of parents in the District appears to be more vocal than is typical. In a similar vein, an overwhelming number of staff stated the reluctance of parents to either exit children from or agree to a decrease in related services during Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meetings. In more than one instance, interviewees mentioned the school has ceded to parent demands for services even though the decision to do so was contrary to their own recommendations and that the nature of these demands far exceed the standard of a Free Appropriate Public Education (e.g., requests for paraprofessionals, excessive service time, specific reading programs, etc.). This avoidance of conflict seems to be an issue for most, if not all, schools in the District and has led to increased and unnecessary services for students that are taxing fiscal, personnel, and emotional capacities. In the words of one interviewee, The situation is getting worse. The acquiescence to parent, advocate, and attorney demands corroborate the perception among several interviewees that uniformity does not exist across the District in regard to PPT processes, procedures and the eligibility for special education services. All acknowledge the presence of a District manual but do not reference it for direction. In general, the systemization of decision-making at the PPT table is due primarily to the experience and talents of PPT chairs. 7

8 Despite the District s commitment to provide staff with numerous professional development (PD) opportunities the past several years, a perception remains among several staff that PD offerings have not particularly applicable to their practices (e.g., coteaching, differentiated instruction, etc.). It is likely that the absence of follow-up after the trainings has resulted in the staff s perception that trainings have not been as effective as they could have been. RECOMMENDATIONS Some parents do not understand the educational model of services, the legal standards of FAPE and LRE, and the standard of required vs. beneficial for candidacy for special education services. This lack of understanding, coupled with the beliefs that special education services are the only game in town and more is better, is contributing to many acrimonious PPT meetings. Therefore, as part of a community outreach initiative, clarity of roles, responsibilities, and educational mission of school-based service provision need to be communicated. In this manner, parents and other stakeholders in the community will be further educated about school-based services that will presumably add to the camaraderie, collegiality, and mutual agreement among all PPT stakeholders regarding the appropriateness of services. In addition, as part of its long-range plan, District leadership may consider an intensive community outreach initiative about RTI components required in general education to address learning needs as a first step, versus the model of waiting to fail with a subsequent referral to special education. In this manner, the public will understand special education is the last - not the first - resort for educational teams to consider, as a variety of supports exist at each school to maximize student learning and avoid failure early on by providing for the individual needs of students in general education. In order to maximize PD resources, a cohesive approach for both general and special education teachers that clearly identifies teacher expectation for student learning and achievement is recommended. This approach should include and specify a collaborative process and the interdependency of general and specialized instruction, which should be based on curriculum standards and evidence-based data for results in student learning. Furthermore, this approach would allow opportunities for the general and special educators to ensure effective classroom instruction and establish a revolving door whereby specialized instruction fills in the individual learning gap for students who also then require less service. It is recommended that such training include the following: the role of each teacher and related services staff 8

9 meaningful classroom modifications and accommodations (using evidence-based data to demonstrate improved learning) general and special educator teaching models effective utilization of special education support services in the classroom techniques for prioritizing and accommodating instructional curriculum goals, objectives, assessments, etc. how to write measurable, educationally-directed, and instructionallyaligned goals and objectives. PROGRAM REVIEW SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS WITH EDUCATIONAL DISABILITIES Continuum of Instructional Supports The predominant instructional model in the District is co-teaching, with or without learning center support, or direct instruction models. Co-teaching is operationally defined as a content expert (i.e., a general education teacher) and a strategy expert (i.e., a special education teacher) taking joint instructional responsibility of an academic course. The District is to be commended for enacting this model for a number of reasons: (1) it affords students in general education the access to a second educator in the classroom, who has particular expertise in addressing the needs of struggling learners; (2) it affords special education students the opportunity to remain in the classroom, thereby ensuring interventions are occurring in the most valid environment without having the students miss valuable instructional time; (3) stigmatization of students with disabilities is nullified because, in a true co-teaching model, one should not be able to discern which students have an IEP and which ones do not; and (4) it adheres to the letter and spirit of the legal mandate to provide services in the Least Restrictive Environment to the greatest extent possible. Throughout the District, students with more intensive needs are mainstreamed to the greatest extent possible given that there are no self-contained full-day programs, and are typically included in specials, unified sports, and other activities that involve typical peers as much as is possible and practical. The high school staff is to be commended for creating a class that allows students with disabilities to be mentored by typical peers and for allowing typical students who may be interested in pursuing careers in special education to have practical experience with disabled students. Despite the District s commendable commitment to team teaching and inclusion practices, it was reported that co-teaching may not be as effective as it could be due to 9

10 lack of proper training in techniques; in essence, the effectiveness of co-teaching is dependent on the individual skill sets of co-teaching dyads. Another possible confounding factor in ensuring optimal investment of special education instruction is the vagueness and absence of explicit connectivity to state frameworks in the IEPs. Although measurability and linkage to academics appeared to be better for students in the elementary grades, the following ELA objectives (all for different students) typifies reviewed academic goals: [the student] will revise a previously produced written response to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the text; [the student] will participate in literacy activities; and [the student] will apply learned comprehension strategies. It was noted by staff and parents that the high school would benefit from additional transitional and vocational support and opportunities for students requiring life-skills components to their curricula, which may include an expansion of job coaching supports. In addition, it was reported that the District could enhance its capacity to expand programs for autism; this particular item will be addressed in a subsequent section of this report. Related Services Despite the reported encouragement to provide services to students with special needs via a push-in model, it was somewhat surprising to see the predominance of pull out services, which were 97%, 100%, and 90% for S-LP, OT, and PT, respectively. Regarding the numerical analysis of speech-language services, the findings below corroborate the previous or forthcoming discussions of: (1) an absence of uniform criteria; (2) the tendency to keep students on services longer than they may need to be; (3) acquiescence to parental pressure for more services; and (4) services that exceed FAPE. It was interesting to note the following observations across the sampled IEPs: The intensity of weekly minutes of S-LP across the mean, median, and mode - 67, 60, and 60 minutes, respectively - is quite high in reference to the stated needs of these students in the IEP. 1 Only 7 of the 49 students reviewed were receiving 30 minutes or less of speechlanguage services. The average units of S-LP services per week, is 48. When this number is divided by the caseload, students are seen for an average of 50 minutes per week. 1 In contrast, the mean and median of weekly minutes for OT (30 and 30) and PT (60 and 60) are more typical 10

11 Of the 42 students receiving at least 30 minutes of S-LP services it was not clear, based on information contained within the IEPs, why so much service time was required. This service time invariably removed the student from the classroom. The S-LPs are addressing areas that could more effectively and efficiently be provided by other staff members. For example, one student was receiving speech-language supports for coping with disappointment. In other cases, the interventions pertaining to literacy (e.g., answering inferential/factual information) could presumably be addressed by the special education teacher with the S-LP acting in a supportive-consultation role. The strong negative correlation (-.34) between service minutes with corroborates the authors experience with the majority of Districts that adhere to a front loading model. Moreover, 5 out of 6 students that were receiving 180 minutes of weekly services are 9 years of age or younger. It interesting to note that when the 17-year old student with 195 minutes of speech services was backed out of the correlational analysis, the computation changed to a more dramatic negative correlation (-44). Both of these scenarios are presented graphically in Appendix B. Again, the quality of the IEPs is inherently dependent upon the abilities of the individual clinician; however, consistent with the previous discussion of the academic goals, those pertaining to S-LP, OT, and PT services frequently lacked cohesion and measurability. Of particular note is the lack of stated educational need for PT services, the number of targets in single objectives for OT services, and the vagueness of objectives with respect to measurability. Target behaviors outlined in objectives were often not operationally defined. For example, it was difficult to discern how an OT might measure whether a student would, or would not, comprehend a concept. Further examination revealed related service reports of present student performance (e.g., strengths) were sparse and provided little information from which relevant goals could be written. Psychologists working in the District are primarily testers, but may see students for direct services. However, when school social worker positions were increased to fulltime, responsibilities of both positions were muddied. As a result, the roles and responsibilities of the behavioral health providers-comprising psychology, social work, and behavioral health are not clearly defined and have led to some turf battles at the secondary level. GENERAL EDUCATION SUPPORTS: SRBI Introductory commentary Per the 2008 publication from the State s Department Education: RTI models grew out of research suggesting that traditional approaches to identifying learning disabilities are seriously flawed and that students sometimes end up in the special education system not 11

12 due to genuine disabilities, but other factors, such as inadequate general education practices and limited opportunities for extra help for struggling students (e.g., Fletcher et al., 1994; Lyon, 1996; Spear-Swerling and Sternberg, 1996), including those students acquiring English. RTI involves providing scientific, research-based instruction and intervention matched to student needs, with important educational decisions based on students levels of performance and learning rates over time. Rather than limiting the provision of instructional and social/behavioral supports for those students classified under a particular label or program, supports are provided to all students, based on individual needs. In other words Scientific Research Based Interventions (SRBI), which is Connecticut s implementation model for the RTI framework, is a general education initiative that is systemic and available to all learners. In order for SRBI to be effective, there needs to be: (1) the correct mindset that it exists not as a special education pass through, but as a systematic process to effectively support students in the general education classroom; (2) systematic processes in place at each school that rely on the collection, interpretation, and analysis of interventions that are based on best practices; and (3) an all hands on deck culture at each school that uses the expertise of special education staff in a supportive role. Consequently, a reliable and systematic pre-referral process serves as a crucial framework that enables the district s special education personnel to maximize their effectiveness and efficiency in educating, treating, and making programming decisions for appropriate students. Consider, for example, that 5 extraneous evaluations per year per psychologist would equate to an entire week lost for that professional. 2 According to multiple interviewees, the SRBI process in the District is not consistent and is consequently school-dependent in its application. Depending upon the interviewee, perceptions of the SRBI process varied greatly, from an effective process to one that was described as a mess. In a similar vein, there appears to be a great amount of confusion among the service providers regarding what their roles and responsibilities are surrounding the SRBI process. Multiple interviewees attributed this lack of uniformity to the principals different interpretations of the process. Consistent with the introductory commentary, in those schools where the SRBI process is working well there is an understanding that it is in the purview of general education. Alternatively, in those schools where the process is not systematic, and viewed as more in the realm of special education, parents are reportedly asking for special education assessments. Thus, although SRBI is not meant to curtail the parental right to ask for special education eligibility, it does not appear to be working as well as it should at certain schools. As it pertains to efficiency, one related service provider speculated that s she will have 6-10 extraneous evaluations this year due to parental requests. Regardless of the degree to which teachers are directly involved in the SRBI process, this question consistently drew answers of frustration and concern. All feel that the 2 Conservatively, a full blown initial psychological evaluation would take 8 hours when testing, scoring, reporting, and team meetings are all factored in; the instructional time lost for the student is incalculable. 12

13 SRBI process is in need of much clarification and the process needs to be clearly spelled out for all staff in order for them to gain an in-depth understanding of the theory behind the process and the expectations of the District and all staff. Special educators, they often feel as though they are taking the blame for the inconsistencies of SRBI processes at individual schools. RECOMMENDATIONS Comprehensive and consistently applied eligibility and exit (declassification) criteria should be developed and implemented in the District in conjunction with state guidelines for both special education eligibility and for related services. Inconsistently applied criteria for identification of students for special education is depriving those students with significant disabilities of the services they are entitled to receive. Similarly, the inconsistency in service determination for students who are eligible for special education results in perceived and real inequities throughout the District and puts an undue strain on personnel and fiscal resources. In addition, more uniformity with respect to testing batteries and codification of the roles and responsibilities of the related service providers in S-LP, OT, PT, and behavioral health should be more clearly defined to ensure that they are supporting students in the most efficient and effective manner. For example, unless a student has a foundation deficit in visual-motor skills, there should be no reason why OT needs to see that student for direct services. Similarly, a student who is receiving literacy interventions with a special education teacher need not have speech-language interventions targeting this area; such duplication of services is wasteful and keeps the students out of the classroom longer than is required. As it specifically relates to eligibility for speech-language interventions, criteria from the state may be amended to: specify the intensity of service delivery based on the variables of age, effect(s) of the disability on academic performance, and the nature of the educational curricula. In this manner, only students requiring such intensive interventions would be systematically and uniformly eligible. That is,subjective variables such as parental and advocate demands would be attenuated. The related service providers may also use the SRBI framework to support students with their expertise outside of the PPT-IEP processes. As per the State s publication on SRBI (2008): Although the focus of the three-tiered model involves general education, other specialists--including, among other professionals, school psychologists, speechlanguage pathologists, ESL teachers, special educators, reading/language arts consultants, math consultants, counselors and social workers--have crucial supportive roles to play in the implementation of SRBI. Among other functions, these specialists can serve as resources for general educators in the implementation of specific curriculums, instructional strategies, assessments, 13

14 climate and social/behavioral supports; suggest ways to differentiate instruction; and provide guidance about appropriate interventions for individual students. In some cases, specialists will also be directly involved in helping to administer assessments or implement interventions. Consequently, the related service providers can avail themselves to struggling students across a variety of tier 3 interventions that may address areas such as articulation, hand writing, social language, and gross motor skills. The use of their collective expertise is optimal because students have the benefit of receiving services without needing to be classified. From an efficiency standpoint the service providers will be able to spend a greater amount of time with students because they will not be encumbered by the PPT process and all of the associated paperwork. Perhaps in conjunction with teaching staff, related service providers should undergo intensive PD regarding the writing of measurable and educationally relevant IEPs. The reader is referred to Appendix C for examples of quantifiable and educationally relevant goals. Introductory Commentary FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS This review provides particular focus on two of the primary expenditure items associated with the District s special education program: out of district placements and staffing. The latter was gauged by a number of variables including the benchmarking of the number of paraprofessionals, special education teachers, behavioral health personnel, SL-Ps, OTs, and PTs to other districts the authors have analyzed within the past two years or other districts in GPS District Reference Group (DRG). Out of District Placements With respect to expenditures for out of district placements (ODP), the current costs of the 42 students in out of district placements, including transportation, is just under $3 million annually. Although this expense has actually dropped in the last three years (from $3.08 million), the District spends the most money (i.e., $7,500) as a ratio of dollars spent for each eligible student in special education (not just those who are actually outplaced). The average cost for a student who is outplaced is approximately $80,000 annually. As indicated in the chart in Appendix D, the number of students with low-incidence-high needs classifications (e.g., Autism, Multiple Disabilities, and Emotional Disturbance) did not deviate significantly from the either the State or the DRG during the last published report and therefore, this cannot be considered a plausible causal factor as to why the costs or numbers of students (approximating 10% of the entire special education population) are so high. 14

15 The reasons for out of district placements, and their associated costs, appear to be primarily three-fold: (1) a culture in the District that is so inclusive in nature, that students who require more intensive and specialized programming are thought not to be candidates for in-district instruction; (2) a misperception among administration and staff that there is an absence of the requisite personnel capacity and a lack of programmatic capacity to adequately address the needs of students within the District; and (3) parent demand for intensive, individualized programming is strong and therefore they may actively seek these placements. Staffing The District s 30 full-time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers equates to a ratio of 1 special education teacher for every 13.3 students, which is higher (i.e., less highly staffed) than the other districts in its District Reference Group (DRG B ) 3 that average a ratio of 1 special education teacher for every 11.6 students. In terms of rank ordering within the DRG, the ratio is 16 out 21 in terms of least highly staffed. The District s has 84 FTE paraprofessionals that are funded through special education, equating to a ratio of one paraprofessional for every 4.76 special education students. This ratio is extremely high, and validates the perception among several interviewees that paraprofessionals are being over-prescribed, especially at the pre-school. The over utilization of special education paraprofessionals is especially compelling given that the nearly 10% of the special education population is out of the District, many of whom are lower incidence-high needs students that presumably are the ones requiring more paraprofessional supports. The 8 FTE S-LPs comprising all certified S-LPs equates to a ratio of approximately 1 S- LP staff member for every 50 students in special education (i.e., the pool of students that may require speech-language services via an IEP within a district, not the caseloads of the clinicians), which is lower in comparison with our past analyses; these ratios have ranged from a low of 1:50 to a high of 1:135, and an average of 1:85. The 2 FTE OT staff, comprising both registered occupational therapists, equates to a ratio of 1 OT staff member for every 200 special education students, which is in-line with the arithmetic mean of 1:180 for other analyses that we have conducted. The.5 FTE PT staff compares favorably, with respect to efficiency of this resource, with other districts that we have analyzed. Typically, a district of GPS size would have 1 FTE PT. The District s 23.6 behavioral health staff (comprising 5.6 psychologists, 8 social workers, and 10 guidance counselors) equates to a ratio of 1 staff member for every 16.9 students in special education, which is lower (that is, more highly staffed) in comparison to the other districts within the DRG, which average 1 behavioral staff 3 The comparisons are based on 2009 data, which is the last published public information provided by Connecticut s Department of Education 15

16 member for every 22 students in special education. In terms of rank ordering within the DRG, GPS ratio is 7 out 21 in terms of most highly staffed. In particular reference to the generous behavioral staffing model, the 5.6 FTE school psychology staff is notable given that the recommended school psychology practitioner to student ratio is by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) currently recommends a ratio of 1: students (general and special education). Although the number of behavioral health staff is high, the maintenance of a more enviable staffing model in behavioral health is an important capacity factor in successful bringing back and keeping in of students with emotional components to their educational disabilities. RECOMMENDATIONS The bringing back, and keeping in, of students who would otherwise require ODP or programs offered by non-district entities is going to require an intensive amount of time, effort, and cultural shifts within the District. The first group to consider is students with specific learning disabilities, many of whom are receiving reading supports after school at the Learning House, which is being funded by the District. This will require staff who have been trained in specialized reading methodologies (e.g., Wilson) to explicitly align their expertise to Connecticut frameworks. In this manner, parents and their advocates will be justifiably confident of a comparable in- District program, while also holding up to possible mediation. Another cohort that may be considered for return is students from grades K-5 on the autism spectrum. Requisite personnel capacity, especially key areas of speech and language and behavioral health are already in place. Presently, GPS uses ACES for a BCBA contract (at an annual cost of $80,000) who provides services and training. Per report, the District just hired a school psychologist who is trained in ABA and also has a staff member who is special education certified and is getting trained for certification as a BCBA. The autism program should include but not limit itself to ABA/DTI services. These services should be utilized - only where appropriate as there is a caution against using this methodology with severe PDD/ID as this may render less benefit for students where other methodologies are more effective. Other crucial programmatic capacities will, at a minimum, include the implementation of the following: 4 The NASP ratio of students to school psychologists is typically understood to be based upon a provision across a more comprehensive spectrum of services (of which, counseling, assessment, and consulting are considered primary). Consequently, through these staffing ratio guidelines, it is important to consider the scope of the duties assigned to school psychologists in the District. 16

17 technology (e.g., ipads, Clicker Five, Pro Qu0, etc.); low tech modifications; trans-disciplinary services; augmentative programs /total communications; and daily living skills In order to enhance its transitional program, the District, in view of its generous behavioral health staff, may consider assigning additional duties to one of the high school social workers. Ideally, the assignment of the social worker with particular expertise in community and inter-agency liaising will enhance the meaningful work experiences for the students, transition to post-graduation employment and residential settings, and improve overall case management for this critical aspect of the program. Alternatively, should the District choose to provide the transitional staffing in a different manner, the current behavioral personnel may support the bringing back of a cohort of students with emotional needs (e.g., at the high school). The District, in keeping the systemization of eligibility processes mentioned earlier in this document, should further define the role and assignment of paraprofessionals. It has become best practice in many other schools that the authors have analyzed for paraprofessionals to be assigned as extensions of teachers and programs; specific paraprofessional assignment to students is typically reserved for exceptional cases. To increase their effectiveness, paraprofessionals need constant support and modeling from the classroom teacher and related service providers in how to effectively address the specific needs of individual students. SUMMARY AND FINAL COMMENTARY The rising costs of special education across the country and the state are well-documented. Consider that the average expenditures in special education in the year ending 2006 in Guilford s DRG constituted 19% of total operation budgets; in the year ending 2010, that proportion grew to 20.5%. In actual dollars, this constituted a rise from about $219 million to $278 million. However, the data vis-à-vis special education spending for Guilford is even starker: special education as a proportion of the total operating budget grew from 21% to its current proportion of 25%, or a rise of over $ 4 million dollars in that same time period. Clearly, the rising financial costs of special education are not in anyone s best interest: not the general education students, parents, or the community. More importantly, these expenditures because they are not necessarily affording students FAPE in the LRE are also not benefitting students with disabilities. The sustainability of such resources aside, the District does need to take immediate action in order to change the culture of unrealistic 17

18 expectations among parents, capacity of staff, and unity of purpose among educators to support all learners in the most fiscally and programmatically sound manner possible. The current expenditures devoted to special education are merely a reflection of these variables. The authors re-present the seminal recommendations that District leadership may consider as part of its long-range plan in order to address the seminal issues deemed of particular import: 1. Organize opportunities for the Pupil Services Department, schools and the community to have important discussions regarding the role of special education in the District and what FAPE should be. 2. Make exit and entry for special education supports and services more systematic with the capacity for the PPT teams to be unified in their decisions, and for the District to contest unrealistic demands of parents and advocates if needed; 3. Unify general and special education with common standards to support a more uniform SRBI process; and 4. Increase capacity of personnel and programs while simultaneously increasing public confidence in allowing the District to provide services and programs currently provided out of district. 18

19 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge all staff in GPS that participated and the administrative team who made this study possible. All staff members were extremely professional and courteous to the Futures Education team. REFERENCES and SOURCES American Speech and Hearing Association. (2007). Scope of Practice in Speech Language Pathology (Scope of Practice). Retrieved from ASHA: Connecticut State Department of Education (2008). Guidelines for speech and language programs: Determining eligibility for special education speech and language services under IDEA (Revised). Connecticut State Department of Education (2008). A Parent s Guide to Special Education in Connecticut. Connecticut State Department of Education (2008). Using Scientific Research Based Interventions: Improving Education for All Students. Connecticut s Framework for RtI. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 34 C.F.R. Part 104 (2006). 19

20 Appendix A: Responses from the Parent Survey Question 1: The District s continuum of special education and related services is suited to my child s needs. Question 2: In general, the District has provided my child with a Free Appropriate Public Education. Question 3: I am satisfied with my child s opportunities to engage in curricular and extracurricular activities with typical students. He/she is part of the fabric of the school community. Question 4: I feel that I have a voice in my child s education with sufficient opportunities to communicate with those involved in his/her education. Question 5: I would recommend my child s special education and related services to another parent of a child with similar educational and therapeutic needs. Key 1=Strongly Disagree Through 5=Strongly Agree Respondent Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question

21

22 Mean Median Mode Min Max

23 Appendix B: The Scatter Plot Illustrating the Correlation of Combined Weekly S-LP, PT, and OT Service Minutes and Age Graph 1 Depicting a Correlation of -33: Inclusive of 17-year Old student Graph 2 Depicting a Correlation of -.43: Exclusive of 17-year Old student 23

24 APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF MEASURABLE, EDUCATIONALLY- DIRECTED BENCHMARKS FOR S-LP, OT, AND PT SERVICES In order for IEPs to truly be of utility, they must always be considered with respect to: (1) their internal consistency, or the degree to which the elements of the document are mutually supporting, and thus painted a cohesive profile of the student; (2) whether interventions are educationally sound and adhere to accepted standards of practice; and (3) the degree to which the goals and benchmarks are measurable and support educational need. It may be argued that IEPs that do not adhere to these fundamental elements may be doing more harm than good, because students are receiving specialized and expensive supports without any indication that they are making any sort of difference in his or her educational experience. S-LP Example will ask an appropriate "wh" question to a peer's utterance with minimal staff cueing with 8/10 trials 2. will maintain eye contact with a peer for at least 5 seconds during a conversational exchange with 1 staff cue for 8/10 trials 3. will predict a character's emotion based on a simple scenario (e.g., the girl lost her doll, how do you think she is feeling?) with visual cues for 9/10 trials Example will complete a sentence with a vocabulary word with a choice of 3 items with 90% accuracy in both written and verbal tasks 2. will construct a 5 word utterance when presented with a corresponding picture consisting of the following construct: The + Descriptor + Subject + is + Verb(ing) with 80% acc. 3. will contrast past/present/and future tenses when describing a pictured event and provided with the subject and verb cognate with 80% acc. 24

25 OT Example Given practice and repetition, Joseph will create an 8-piece 3D object from picture directions with verbal cues less than 25% of the task. 2. Joseph will complete a 24-piece puzzle with verbal cues for less than 5 verbal/visual cues for the task. 3. Joseph will copy and complete block patterns of 6 blocks given initial verbal/visual cues. Example [The student] will complete visual perceptual tasks activities within the curriculum with verbal cues less than 25% of the time during 75% of opportunities as demonstrated by the achievement of the following benchmarks. 2. [The student] will complete activities requiring eye hand coordination within the curriculum with verbal cues less than 25% of the time during 75% of opportunities as demonstrated by the achievement of the following benchmarks. Again, note the linkage to the curriculum, measurability, and cueing PT Example [The student] will be able to ambulate within his school with distant supervision and good safety awareness, 25% of the time. 2. [The student] will be able to ascend and descend stairs safely with minimal to no verbal cues, 25% of the time. 25

26 3. [The student] will be able to transition from quadruped to 1/2 kneeling to standing with minimal assistance, 25% of the time. Example [The student] will ambulate safely within her school environment/community and follow all rules/regulations, 100% of the time. Goal will be measured by observations, formal/informal assessments, and progress reports. 2. Given a physical activity [the student] will complete the activity to increase his muscle strength with 80% accuracy and with minimal fatigue as measured by the following benchmarks. Goal will be measured by therapist observations and progress reports. 26

27 APPENDIX D: A BREAKDOWN OF EDUCATIONAL DISABILITIES IN GPS: 2010 Disability Count District Percent DRG Percent State Percent Autism Learning Disability Intellectual Disability Emotional Disturbance Speech Impairment Other Health Impairment* Other Disabilities** Total