Review of Curricula and Instructional Services to Students with Disabilities in the Highline Public Schools A Report of the External Core Team

Transcription

1 Review of Curricula and Instructional Services to Students with Disabilities in the Highline Public Schools A Report of the External Core Team Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative Education Development Center, Inc.

2 Review of Curricula and Instructional Services to Students with Disabilities in the Highline Public Schools Table of Contents BACKGROUND...1 Organization of the Comprehensive Review...2 Core Team...2 Evaluation Process...5 District Questions...5 Overview of the District...7 HPS Teachers...7 Organization of the HPS Report...9 SECTION I: COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION...10 HPS Vision and Access to Core Curriculum...10 Cross-departmental Collaboration and Communication...12 Communication about Special Education Policies and Procedures...14 School-based Structures to Support Cross-functional Collaboration...15 Recommendations...17 SECTION II: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE), THE CONTINUUM OF SERVICES, AND ACCESS TO THE CURRICULUM...20 Achievement and Disability...20 HPS Student Achievement...20 Comparing District and State Achievement of Students with IEPs...20 Reading: Students with and without Disabilities in HPS...21 Mathematics: Students with and without Disabilities in HPS...23 Least Restrictive Environment and Continuum of Services...24 Distribution of HPS School-Age Students among Educational Settings by Primary Area of Disability and Placement...24 Placement along the Continuum of Services...25 HPS Educational Setting Rates by Home School Status and Grade...27

3 Students with Autism...30 English Language Learners...33 Discipline Data and Least Restrictive Environment...33 Recommendations...36 SECTION III: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTI-TIER SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS ACCESS TO STANDARDS-BASED INSTRUCTION...38 Instructional Delivery Models...42 Curriculum...43 Use of Assessment Data...45 Family and Community Engagement...46 Technology...47 Promising Practices...47 Concerning Practices...48 Recommendations...49 SECTION IV: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT...54 Professional Learning...54 Standards for Professional Learning...54 Recommendations...59 SUMMARY...63 APPENDICES...78 Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed...79 Appendix B: List of Persons Interviewed...80 Appendix C: List of School Visited...81

4 BACKGROUND In the winter of 2014, the Highline Public Schools (HPS) contracted with the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative (the Collaborative) to conduct a comprehensive review of programs and services offered by the school district to students with disabilities who have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The Collaborative, housed at Education Development Center, Inc., is a national network of nearly 100 school districts committed to improving outcomes for students with disabilities and other diverse learners. In addition to 20 years of experience in providing leadership development and networking opportunities to its membership of special and general education administrators, the Collaborative offers a range of customized technical assistance and professional development services that focus on some of the most pressing issues affecting urban school districts. Among these are the following: Designing policies, procedures, and organizational structures that promote improved student achievement as dictated by state and federal requirements (e.g., the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the No Child Left Behind Act) Developing and expanding inclusive practices Designing, implementing, and evaluating effective multi-tiered academic and behavioral support systems Creating culturally responsive educational systems Reducing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education programs Creating internal complaint management and accountability systems Improving student academic and postsecondary outcomes Throughout its history, the Collaborative has organized and delivered technical assistance to more than 50 local education agencies and state departments of education. In all contract engagements, the Collaborative approaches its work as a critical friend asking probing questions, examining data through multiple lenses, and offering concrete recommendations with a full appreciation of what is already in place and working well. The goal of its technical assistance work is to assist education agencies in their efforts to improve outcomes and life opportunities for students with disabilities and other diverse learners. 1

5 Organization of the Comprehensive Review In response to the school district s request for a program and service delivery review, the Collaborative organized a Core Team of experienced educational leaders to identify organizational, programmatic, policy, procedural, resource allocation, and service delivery improvements that HPS might implement to enhance student outcomes, address gaps in achievement for students with IEPs, and conform to contemporary standards of best practice. Core Team Dr. Orla Higgins Averill is a senior training and technical assistance associate with the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, where she brings 15 years of experience in special education with an emphasis on assessment and intervention, school and district leadership, policy implementation, systems change, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). She presently supports the implementation of a multi-tiered system of support framework in the Boston Public Schools and the Arlington (VA) Public Schools, delivering training and technical assistance to hundreds of teachers and leaders. She is a member of the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the Massachusetts School Psychologists Association, where she has previously served on the Board. Dr. Higgins Averill is the co-author of several publications on MTSS and Response to Intervention (RTI). Prior to joining the Collaborative, Dr. Higgins Averill was a school psychologist in the Alexandria City (VA) Public Schools, the Quincy (MA) Public Schools, and McLean Hospital. Dr. Cecelia Dodge has served as Assistant Superintendent for Special Education in the San Francisco Unified School District, San Francisco (CA) and Director of Special Education for the St. Paul (MN) Public Schools. Currently she lives in Minnesota, where she launched an education consulting business with the goal of helping school leaders and teachers to transform their schools to ensure the success of all learners. Dr. Dodge has also been recognized by advocacy groups in Minnesota and California for her work to improve education for young children with disabilities and for children and youth who are placed for care and treatment. Dr. Dodge has also served on the advisory board for the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative. 2

6 Dr. Anna McTigue, project director at Education Development Center, Inc., has 15 years of consulting experience and brings 28 years of expertise in education, including program implementation and evaluation, school reform in the middle and high school, secondary transition, special education and inclusive practices, and research and development. Recent evaluation and research projects have included district organizational reviews of special education and ELL services through EDC s Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative and research through the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands (REL-NEI) which resulted in the publication of Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York State districts (2010). As project director of ICARE Schools: A Research Study of Meaningful Parent Involvement in the IEP Process (OSEP research project), Dr. McTigue both managed and conceptualized the research and also created activities that could be used by schools to actively engage parents in the IEP process. For over a decade, Dr. McTigue has played a key role in the implementation and research of the professional development created through the Addressing Accessibility in Mathematics project. Dr. Caroline Parker is a senior research scientist in the Learning and Teaching Division, Education Development Center, Inc. Her research focuses on identifying barriers to achievement for all students, particularly English language learners (ELLs) and students with IEPs. Her most recent research has focused on achievement in science and mathematics for traditionally underserved populations. She has worked with the Collaborative on numerous district reviews, including reviews of district practices with ELLs in Polk County, FL; Yonkers, NY; and Somerville, MA. She has co-authored two reports published by the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands, New measures of English language proficiency and their relationship to performance on large-scale content assessments (2009) and Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York State districts (2010). She is the principal investigator of a study funded by the National Science Foundation on the role of Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) professional development programs in improving teaching practices, and she is currently leading an evaluation of Connecticut s Algebra for All curriculum. 3

7 Dr. David Riley has more than 35 years experience working with school districts on numerous special education policy, organizational, programmatic, and compliance issues. As executive director of the Collaborative and co-leader of several national initiatives, he has become intimate with both theory and best practices in developing inclusive schools, fostering student retention, and creating culturally responsive education systems. For more than 16 years, Dr. Riley served as co-chair of the Summer Institute on Critical Issues in Urban Special Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Dr. Claudia Rinaldi, assistant director of the Collaborative, brings over 20 years of experience in the field of general and special education. She has held a variety of positions, including professor and researcher, technical assistance provider, elementary and middle school teacher, and special education teacher. She has published research on disabilities and school change efforts in such journals as Teaching Exceptional Children, Journal of Multiculturalism in Education, Journal of Education, and Behavioral Disorders. She contributes to the field in various roles, notably as a member of the Board of Directors for the Council for Exceptional Children, a member of the National Center for Intensive Interventions, past co-chair of the Council for Children with Behavior Disorders Professional Development Committee; and a member of the advisory council for the RTI Action Network, a division of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Among other Collaborative projects, Dr. Rinaldi led the Boston Public Schools Multi-Tier System of Support Project, coordinating guidance, training, and technical assistance to implement a system of academic and behavioral supports for more than 80 schools. 4

8 Evaluation Process In the fall of 2013 Drs. Riley and Rinaldi participated in conference calls with HPS leaders to discuss the goals, outcomes, and products of the review, as well as a timeline for Core Team activities. They also met with the Executive Director of the Department of Special Services and Student Support. Relevant and available documents and data were identified, as were the individuals and groups that would be interviewed by Core Team members during their on-site visit on February 10 12, Prior to the visit, the Core Team members began their review and analysis of school district documents and data, which are referenced in the Appendix. During the visit, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted to learn about the experiences and perspectives of school personnel, parents, students, and administrators and to obtain a breadth of information relative to specific issues or educational practices. In addition, the Core Team conducted classroom observations to obtain data in natural settings and to assess the implementation of school district initiatives to improve educational outcomes for its students. The Core Team also interviewed more than 100 school- and district-level education professionals who could provide insight and perspective as well as recommendations about how outcomes for students with IEPs might be improved (see Appendix for a list of individuals interviewed). Further, the Core Team met with a group of more than 30 parents who shared their experiences and concerns related to programs and services for students with IEPs. During the on-site visit, all three Core Team members visited sixteen schools and over 90 classrooms (see Appendix for a list of schools). District Questions The leadership of HPS is concerned about the performance of the school district s students with IEPs on statewide assessments and about the quality of their overall educational experience. The leadership shared the following essential questions to guide the review: Does all staff understand our current continuum of services for students in Highline and the qualifying criteria for each component: Learning Resource Center (LRC or resource room), Intensive Academic Center (IAC), Emotional Behavioral Center (EBC), and Integrated Learning Center (ILC)? 5

9 Does our current continuum of services meet the needs of students in the Highline School District who have disabilities, including our students with autism? Are academic outcomes impacted positively or negatively across our system by our choices of service delivery models, such as a push-in co-teaching model vs. a pull-out model? Do students with IEPs at the secondary level (grades 7 12) have equal access to rigorous courses? Do the current instructional practices within the special education context exemplify rigor that will increase academic outcomes? Do we have evidence of models in our district that other successful districts are using to increase academic outcomes for students with special needs? How does progress monitoring data inform instruction and service delivery? Does our 4:1 model support collaboration between general education and LRC teachers that will positively impact academic achievement for students with IEPs? Do current special education resources align with district core curriculum resources and with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)? In addition to these guiding questions, the Core Team considered the school district s four pillars as articulated in its strategic plan: Equitable access to rigorous, standards-based instruction Results-focused professional learning and collaboration Strong partnerships with families and community A culturally-responsive organization 6

10 Overview of the District Highline Public Schools serves nearly 19,000 students, pre-kindergarten through grade 12, from the communities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park, SeaTac, Boulevard Park, and White Center in Washington State. About 15% of the district s school-aged students receive special education services. The district has 39 schools: 18 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 13 high schools, one skills center, and one early childhood center. HPS employs over 2,000 staff members and offers a wide variety of educational opportunities from early childhood to college preparation. It is governed by a five-member Board of Directors that sets district policy and oversees the superintendent. The district s racial/ethnic composition today is 24.2% white, 37.1% Hispanic, 14.3% Asian, 11.4% Black, 7.6% multi-racial, 4.3% Pacific Islander, and 1.1% American Indian/Alaskan Native a combined 75.8% minority population. Seventy-one percent of the student enrollment is low-income, defined as receiving free or reduced-price meals, and 22% are English language learners (ELLs). Like many schools districts across the State of Washington, HPS has seen a dramatic shift in student demographics in the last three years, including a 12% growth in the number of students receiving free or reduced meals, an 8% growth in the Latino/Hispanic population, and a decrease in the white student population of 8%. HPS Teachers Overall, HPS teachers are experienced and well-educated. According to the Washington State Report Card for HPS, the following qualifications pertained to the district s 1,041 teachers: An average of 10.6 years of experience 68% with at least a master s degree 96% of classes taught by teachers meeting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) highly qualified (HQ) definition 95.7% of classes in high poverty schools taught by teachers meeting ESEA s HQ definition 7

11 87.9% of classes in low poverty schools taught by teachers who met ESEA s HQ definition HPS is committed to equity in education, high expectations for all, and partnering with families and the community to ensure that all children achieve their potential. Its promise is every student in HPS is known by name, strength, and need, and graduates ready for college, career, and citizenship. The 2017 goals in the district s strategic plan state a commitment to educational success for every student by focusing on the following areas, as quoted below. Mastery by Grade 3: At least 19 out of 20 students entering Kindergarten in 2013 will meet or exceed standards in all core subjects by the end of 3 rd grade. Success in Algebra: At least 19 out of 20 students entering grade 6 in 2013 will pass Algebra by the end of Grade 9. High School Graduation: At least 19 out 20 students entering grade 9 in 2013 will graduate prepared to choose their future. Zero Suspensions: Out-of-school suspension will drop to zero by 2015 (except when critical for student and staff safety, as outlined in school board policy). Bilingual, Biliterate: Every student in the class of 2026 will graduate bilingual and biliterate. Tech-savvy, Tech-literate: Every student in the class of 2026 will graduate tech-savvy and tech-literate. To accomplish these goals, the district focuses on implementing instruction that is framed around four pillars needed to ensure effective teaching practices, leadership practices, and organizational practices. The four pillars are: (1) equitable access to rigorous, standard-based instruction, (2) results-focused professional learning and collaboration, (3) strong partnerships with families and community, and (4) a culturally responsive organization. 8

12 Organization of the HPS Report Findings are presented below across the following four sections: Section I. Communication and Collaboration Section II. Student Achievement in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), the Continuum of Services, and Access to the Curriculum Section III. Effectiveness of the Implementation of Multi-tier System of Supports and Special Education Students Access to Standards-based Instruction Section IV: Professional Learning and Development These four areas speak to both the essential questions and strategic goals of HPS. Recommendations are presented following each section. 9

13 SECTION I: COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION HPS has been aligning its efforts to support all students by identifying specific teaching practices, leadership strategies, and organizational strategies to reach the 2017 goals. It is commendable that HPS is making it a priority to effect changes that will improve outcomes for children and youth with disabilities. The 2017 strategic plan has served as a useful vehicle for communication, conversation, and increased collaboration in the district. The superintendent s philosophy of a unified approach and strong instruction for all students is gaining traction and creating space to focus on improving outcomes for students with IEPs as well as other diverse learners. Strengths and challenges were observed in a variety of communication and coordination areas that relate to the essential questions and their broader focus. Interview and focus group participants also identified several areas regarding communication and collaborative practices at the district and school levels, as well as within and across departments. Specifically, analysis highlighted the following: The HPS vision and access to core curriculum Cross-departmental collaboration and communication Communication about special education policy and procedures School-based structures to support cross-functional collaboration HPS Vision and Access to Core Curriculum The Core Team heard the superintendent speak of equity and action, emphasizing that the high poverty rate is a critical issue in HPS and urging all educators to use their ethical and professional compass to do what is right for students and families. It is clear that there is support for special education at HPS, and cross-functional collaboration is expected to occur at all levels throughout the district. As an example, a principal shared how each department is now providing updates about issues and areas of progress at principals meetings. The superintendent, cabinet members, staff, and parents with whom the Core Team met spoke positively about the new leadership of the Department of Special Services and Student Support. 10

14 The superintendent stated that she is aware of the magnitude of issues that the new executive director of the Department of Special Services and Student Support must address to support the strategic plan. District leaders further indicated that they are hopeful that the new special education administration will look with fresh eyes through a performance-oriented lens. One principal reported that the new executive director has provided beneficial information about how special education collaborates with the academic office and sets expectations for supporting students with IEPs. Within the Department of Special Services and Student Support, which includes special education, related services, school psychology, and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), there was a sense of cohesiveness within each group but a sense of departmental fragmentation. The new executive director has met with each individual group in an effort to get to know their roles and goals and is developing plans to have more withindepartmental collaboration opportunities. The department also has a new group of assistant directors who provide program supervision and assistance to the district s schools and who are evolving into their new roles and responsibilities. It was evident that the assistant directors provide intensive supports and are well regarded for their intent and promise of providing district-level support. Further, it was clear that the department staff is interested in operationalizing the district s vision in meaningful ways at the school level and is looking to fill needs that increase academic rigor and continuity across programs. Alignment among units within the department will improve the dissemination of a cohesive message and the delivery of coordinated supports and services. School visits and focus groups revealed that staff members want to understand the district s vision further, particularly as it relates to educating all students well. Specifically, school leaders and staff had questions about the commitment of the district to support the learning of all students and what expectations directly related to meeting the needs of students with IEPs. They are hoping that there will be cross-functional roles that focus on supporting teachers with differentiating instruction when students are served across classrooms. They also wanted clarification on the intent of the philosophy of Access to Core and how this relates to inclusion of, as opposed to mainstreaming of, students with IEPs. Mainstreaming is currently the 11

15 predominant practice, with students with IEPs receiving a separate curriculum in separate classes from as early as pre-kindergarten. Mainstreaming into general education is hard to do if students are not accessing the core curriculum from the start. An inclusion model focused on appropriate differentiated instruction 1 would include students from the beginning of their education and provide as much support in the classroom as possible. School leaders and staff also asked about systemic change within and across schools and explained that they need a common language for concepts such as expectations, collaboration, data collection, IEP development, transitions, roles (regular and special education) and core curriculum. Starting with a common language and definition of terms in these areas is a necessary first step toward getting to what is really needed; that is, a shared vision of what each of these areas look like at the school level and an understanding of implementation benchmarks. Understanding of the district s vision, then putting it into action, requires a systemic and thoughtful approach to professional development. Cross-departmental Collaboration and Communication Strong examples of cross-departmental collaboration at the district level were evident. With all instruction and student support services within the Office of the Chief Academic Officer, it was clear that there is intent to adopt district-wide goals that include shared planning and ownership of the outcomes for all students, with the Department of Special Services and Student Support as an integral part of the team. For example, across district interviews, all leaders under the chief academic officer spoke of the goal to adopt a multi-tier system of support (MTSS) in the upcoming year and how using this preventive framework would help establish higher rigor and expectations across the district for the delivery of coordinated supports. Not only are department leaders meeting as a leadership team, but regular education is also working closely with special education on the programmatic planning of the upcoming implementation of MTSS and differentiated instruction. This planning was evident in the district s strong adoption of the math 1 Differentiated instruction is a teaching theory based on the premise that instructional approaches should vary and be adapted in relation to individual and diverse students in classrooms. The model of differentiated instruction requires teachers to be flexible in their approach to teaching and adjust the curriculum and presentation of information to learners rather than expecting students to modify themselves for the curriculum (Tomlinson, 2001). 12

16 core curriculum and a similar process that is beginning for English language arts, as well as the development of PBIS implementation plans in all middle schools and high schools for next school year. While the implementation of MTSS has yet to be undertaken district-wide, several schools have adopted Response to Intervention (RTI) and/or PBIS, approaches that are part of the MTSS framework. At the leadership and cabinet levels, an understanding of MTSS is developing, but most school-level staff have yet to engage with the MTSS message in a meaningful way. Continued communication and coordination between the chief academic officer and the executive director of the Department of Special Services and Student Support as part of the district leadership team can only strengthen the likelihood of system adoption of their message about access to the core curriculum and its link to CCSS within an MTSS framework. Further, systemic messaging about MTSS must be articulated. Many of the classrooms visited contained minimal or no evidence of progress monitoring activities. When such evidence was observed, it did not seem to be part of a larger school-wide approach. In a related finding, minimal formative assessment or qualitative feedback to students was evident in those regular and special education classrooms observed. For example, in some schools Core Team members saw the PBIS school behavioral expectations posted, but when special educators were asked about the acknowledgement system, they said that they have their own behavioral program, or when asked about when they had rolled out the school-wide behavioral expectations, they did not seem to know what those were. In schools reportedly implementing RTI, some teachers were unable to articulate whether students in their LRC or EBC classrooms were provided access to the general curriculum; instead their responses indicated that they used their own curriculum and were not sure of what happens in the regular education classroom. In fact, interview and focus group participants noted that this is the first time the district has purchased the general education curriculum for special education teachers, but the school visits revealed that many teachers still opt to use a variety of supplemental programs for ELA instruction rather that the district general education curriculum materials and practices. This was true at all school levels (elementary, middle and high) and across all programs (LRC, EDC, IAC and ILC). For example, in some LRC math classrooms teachers were using a different curriculum with students with mild 13

17 disabilities. These observational data suggest that the district should clearly state the expectation of using curriculum and its critical connection to the CCSS for all students, as well as attending to in-service coaching and professional development to support the meaningful utilization and differentiation of general education curriculum materials for students with IEPs. A cohesive set of expectations about curriculum, instruction, and inclusive practices for students with disabilities is needed. Such expectations must be operationalized with professional development and ongoing coaching supports. It is important to approach the planning and professional development collaboratively across general and special education, including related service providers and educational technology specialists. In working to implement tiered systems of intervention with fidelity, HPS has an opportunity to articulate a clear message that the purpose of having an MTSS is to assure the success of all students, including students with disabilities, in the core curriculum. Communication about Special Education Policies and Procedures Although principals shared that the executive director of Special Services and Student Support is highly responsive and provides effective supports finding substitute teachers, behavioral supports, academic supports, etc.when needed, they felt that it would be helpful to have a special education guidance manual about common policies and procedures of what type of supports can be presented. Such a manual would help principals provide clearer and more accurate information related to the pre-referral and referral processes, eligibility determination, LEA representation, and programs that can address the needs of students with IEPs (e.g., IAC, ILC, LRC, EBC, etc.). During observations and interviews, teachers and related service providers also shared that a lack of written guidelines contributes to inconsistent practices across schools. Further, principals and teachers reported the need for guidance about special education practices and services to move from a compliance focus to a best practices focus. Principals identified early childhood transition planning as a promising practice this year, offering the example of pre- K and K teachers collaborating to make transition for students smoother and more systematic. As part of their leadership development, principals would like to have the opportunity to talk with one another about their problem-solving practices and effective supports for students. A written guidelines document, preferably online and searchable, would allow the special education administrative team to increase professional effectiveness drastically while making decision- 14

18 making processes more transparent to HPS staff and, ultimately, to families. The very act of drafting such a manual would also enhance the consistency of guidance that is provided to schools by the special education administrative team. Along with facilitating communication within the Department of Special Services and Student Support and between the department and the schools, interviewees also noted that a policies and procedures manual would help ensure consistent understanding and practices for students who go through the pre-referral and special education process. Aligned with the district s priorities, stakeholders articulated that, with regard to serving students with IEPs, particularly as it relates to providing behavioral supports, the lack of clear and consistent communication around the implementation of best practices has left them feeling disconnected and without clear guidelines as to how to provide such support (e.g., to students with autism). They also discussed the need for clear guidance on moving to standards-based IEPs, though they acknowledged that the department will be focusing on that soon. Another communication challenge exists with regard to the teacher evaluation tool the district has adopted. The tool currently does not apply to special education teachers. Principals are concerned that they cannot effectively evaluate how special education teachers deliver core instruction and supplemental instruction in a manner that addresses the needs of students with IEPs. They requested that the district communicate what the evaluation should look like for special education teachers and what additional elements may be added or amended to make the process more specific to the work they do with students with IEPs. School-based Structures to Support Cross-functional Collaboration Teachers in regular education and special education reported some collaboration opportunities but noted that they are limited in scope for supporting students with special education needs. Some promising practices seen during the school visits included trips to transition school sites from pre-k to K on the part of teachers from some schools, designated times for professional learning communities, school-wide data and problem solving teams, and other structures for collaboration. Another example was a middle grades special educator who created a cheat sheet or snapshot of the student s IEP that communicates the child s strengths, language support 15

19 needs, diagnosis, IEP goals, accommodations, grading, etc. She and her regular education partner said they find it very beneficial. At the classroom level, another observed practice was the use of buddy rooms in an inclusive school, in which students could go to another classroom when they needed a break or to calm down. The teachers in the buddy rooms knew the students in both classrooms well. In the same school, the school-wide use of Dolphin Dollars for acknowledging the display of appropriate behavioral expectations was observed. Finally, in one high school some of the LRC teachers monitored their general education counterparts homework postings on Edmodo in order to support their students better. However, during school observations of various programs at the elementary, middle, and high levels, there was limited evidence that structures for communication and collaboration were systemic and effective in supporting students with IEPs. In fact, a few principals said that the schedule was the largest impediment to collaboration time for teachers, even when they use their principal-initiated time. In many special education classes, teachers shared that they informally talked with the regular education teacher in the hallway, but they lamented that they did not have a formal, scheduled time to meet together to discuss the students they both supported. This was also evident in a 2012 report conducted by the BERC Group 2. Collaboration and communication about ways to increase inclusive practices were limited, even though school leaders expressed an interest in learning more about how to make these practices happen. In fact, principals and teachers asked that they be given an opportunity to visit other schools and districts in order to obtain more ideas and see how differentiation can happen effectively. Lastly, special education teachers do not seem to have structured times to collaborate and communicate across programs for the sharing of best practices. From the school visits, it was evident to the Core Team that each self-contained classroom/program (e.g. LRC, ILC, IAC, EBC, etc.) was working fairly independently from the others. In some ILC and EBC classrooms there was evidence of high academic expectations that address the standards, while in others there was not. There was no observed continuum of academic or behavioral supports, common 2 District Implications of Needs Assessments: Highline School District Evaluation Report, November The BERC Group, Inc. 16

20 curriculum or standard-based instruction, or progress-monitoring practices that were consistent across programs. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. COMMUNICATION. HPS should embed into its strategic communications plan internal goals for cross-departmental expectations and procedures about the MTSS initiatives, policies, processes, and practices being developed for rollout. a. In general. Using information generated through this review, identify how HPS currently communicates with educators throughout the district and develop a comprehensive communications plan that responds to areas identified as challenges. i. Consider surveying professionals at the different organizational levels to obtain a more comprehensive picture of strengths and weaknesses in current communication practices and how these may impact understanding of current challenges and ongoing developments, including MTSS. ii. Continue the development of program criteria and expectations by reviewing elements of current programs and access to general education curriculum and standards, and develop a checklist that can be easily tracked by teachers as well as assistant directors as they visit or evaluate their classes. iii. Develop a communications plan that addresses the expectations of CCSS and access to the regular curriculum for all students, highlighting students with special educational needs. iv. Develop district-wide communication and collaboration structures that allow for regular and special education teachers to share information effectively about students current performance levels and progress over time, while also teaching them how to use the data for data-driven instruction planning. For example, establish a district-wide, 45-minute, 17

21 cross-departmental teacher collaboration period with clear expectations for addressing student need and progress. 2. POLICY & PROCEDURES. Develop a comprehensive and cohesive HPS policy and procedural manual for the provision of special education services under IDEA and services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. a. In general. Identify in this manual how HPS carries out the various activities required by relevant federal and state laws. In addition, ensure that core processes are detailed sufficiently to support consistent practice across schools. i. The administrative team has already begun to write these guidelines. The writing and dissemination of these should be prioritized. An intranet location should be established so that as various sections are written and approved they are posted, shared, and added to a table of contents. The entire collection of these guidelines will eventually become the basis of the manual. ii. Establish an advisory group of principals, administrators, and staff who support schools to provide guidance about the manual s content and provide feedback on the first draft. iii. Develop additional documents with user-friendly information for various stakeholders but, most particularly, for parents. iv. The manual should be in electronic format and available through the district s Department of Student Services website. (See example from Chicago Public Schools 3 ). 3. MTSS FRAMEWORK. Integrate efforts in the areas of RTI and PBIS to develop a robust and systemic MTSS framework for both academic and behavioral multi-level prevention. Notably, in each sub-section of this report, the Core Team recommends the continued development of a systemic MTSS framework. This recommendation is repeated throughout the report because a fully implemented MTSS can and should serve as an organizational framework for all HPS initiatives and related policies, procedures,

22 and practices, including allocation of resources; curricular, instructional and assessment decisions; and coordinated professional development. a. District Steering Team. Identify a formal district-level cross-functional MTSS Steering Team as part of the district-wide MTSS framework that integrates RTI and PBIS. This team should focus on addressing organizational structures that will position schools for success, as well as organizing district-level supports to address any barriers to implementation. b. Monitor implementation. Monitor HPS s use of an MTSS framework to determine if it helps to increase a proactive identification of students with poor reading, math, and/or behavior and increases the performance of these students once identified. Use district-wide and school-based leadership teams for this purpose. Additionally, monitor data, including performance on RTI screeners and rates of referrals and eligibility for subgroup populations (e.g., special education categories, ELLs, ELLs with disabilities, etc.) in each school to address disproportionality and the achievement gap. 4. Adopt rubrics for evaluating special education teachers and related service providers. Key leaders should look to other school districts that have implemented such rubrics to inquire about their efficacy. In many other districts, modified rubrics have already been created for these groups and approved by bargaining unions. 19

23 SECTION II: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE), THE CONTINUUM OF SERVICES, AND ACCESS TO THE CURRICULUM The leadership of HPS is concerned with the question of whether the school district s continuum of services is meeting the needs of students with IEPs. Further, HPS leadership wants to know how the school district can enhance access to differentiated instruction that leads to improved academic outcomes in the LRE for these students. They want to learn where there may be models of success within the district, in order to study and replicate best practices. In exploring these concerns and interests, the Core Team examined achievement data, discipline data, outcome data, and educational setting data relative to students receiving special education services. The Core Team additionally considered information from focus group sessions and school visits. Achievement and Disability Overall, 15% of HPS students receive special education services, which is higher than the 12.2% reported for Washington State, and two percentage points higher than the nation s rate of 13% as reported by the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (2012). HPS Student Achievement Students with IEPs in HPS have demonstrated low academic achievement, both in absolute terms and in relation to students without IEPs, on the state reading and math assessments across time. These patterns of low achievement have been consistent over the last eight years. Comparing District and State Achievement of Students with IEPs In , on state achievement tests in both reading and math, the percentage of students with IEPs in all grades who performed at or above the proficient level was smaller for HPS than for the state as a whole. (See Figure 1 for reading and Figure 2 for math.) 20

24 Figure 1. Percentage of State and District Students with IEPs Reaching Proficiency in Reading on the MSP, % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10 State District Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State Report Card, Figure 2. Percentage of State and District Students with IEPs Reaching Proficiency in Math on the MSP, % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 State District Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State Report Card, Reading: Students with and without IEPs in HPS At all grade levels, a higher percentage of HPS students without IEPs met or exceeded proficiency on the reading assessment in (from 63% in grade 7 to 82% in grade 10), than students with IEPs (from 16% in grade 6 to 36% in grade 10). (See Figure 3, below.) 21

25 Figure 3. Percentage of HPS Students Reaching Proficiency in Reading on the MSP by Disability Status, % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10 Students without disabilities Students with disabilities Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State Report Card, As shown in Figure 4, the gap between the percentages of HPS students with and without IEPs reaching or exceeding proficiency in reading has grown over the last four years at all grade levels except grade 7. For example, in , 60% of sixth grade students without IEPs scored proficient or above on the reading assessment, compared to 14% of sixth graders with IEPs a gap of 46 percentage points. In , the percentage of sixth grade students scoring proficient or above on the reading assessment was 71%, compared to 16% for sixth graders with IEPs a gap of 55 percentage points. The gap increased by nine percentage points over the three years. Figure 4. Gaps between the Percentages of HPS Students with and without IEPs who Reached Proficiency in Reading on the MSP Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 10 Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State Report Card, 22

26 Mathematics: Students with and without Disabilities in HPS At all grade levels, a higher percentage of HPS students without disabilities met or exceeded proficiency on the math assessment in (from 54% in grade 8 to 71% in grade 6), than students with IEPs (from 7% in grade 8 to 18% in grade 3). (See Figure 5). Figure 5. Percentage of HPS Students Reaching Proficiency in Math on the MSP by Disability Status, % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Students without disabilities Students with disabilities Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State Report Card, As with reading, the gap between the percentages of HPS students with and without IEPs reaching or exceeding proficiency in math has grown over the last four years at all grade levels (Figure 6). For example, in grade 3, in , 50% of students without disabilities scored proficient or above on the math assessment, compared to 17% of students with IEPs; a gap of 33 percentage points. In , the percentage of third grade students scoring proficient or above on the math assessment was 61%, compared to 18% for students with IEPs; a gap of 43 percentage points. The gap increased by ten percentage points over the last four years. Figure 6. Gap between the Percentages of HPS Students with and without IEPs Who Reached Proficiency in <ath on the MSP Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Source: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State Report Card, 23

27 Least Restrictive Environment and Continuum of Services For the following sections, the Core Team reviewed district data about the distribution of HPS students with IEPs among programs and educational settings. A program is one of the arrangements on HPS s continuum of services (e.g. LRC, ILC, IAC, EBC, etc.) to which a student may be assigned. Another parameter of interest, educational setting, is the percentage of time that an assigned student spends in a regular classroom: 0 39%, 40 79%, or %. The Team also reviewed data about the assignment of students to their home schools or other schools. Data were disaggregated and contrasted by area of disability and by race/ethnicity for grades 1 12, and specific information about the placements of students with autism is given for students in pre-k and kindergarten. In addition, suspension data were reviewed to determine the extent to which students with IEPs are removed from school and do not have access to full instructional days. Distribution of HPS School-age Students among Educational Settings by Primary Area of Disability and Placement In looking at HPS students by disability category, it is evident that students identified with specific learning disabilities (SLD) and communication disorders have the highest rates of integration, with the highest proportion of them spending between % of their time in general education settings. On the other hand, higher proportions of students with developmental delays or autism spend most of the time in substantially separate settings and only 0 39% of their time in general education classes. Overall, 14.1% of HPS students with IEPs in grades 1 12 are in substantially separate classrooms (that is, they spend between 0% and 39% of time in general education classes). This figure is similar to the state s rate of 13.2% and the nation s 14%. 24

28 Figure 7. HPS Students with IEPs by Disability Category and Educational Setting 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0-39% in regular class 40-79% in regular class % in regular class Placement along the Continuum of Services The data summarized below and reflected in Figure 8 suggest that students in the ILC and IAC programs are mostly in substantially separate settings, spending between 0% and 39% in regular classes. As shown above, most students with communication disorders and specific learning disabilities spend between 80% and 100% of their time in regular education classes, while more than 50% of students with autism or intellectual disabilities are spending most of their time in substantially separate classrooms. The district should investigate in which settings are students with IEPs being most and least successful, and whether, within the most substantially separate placements like ILC and IAC, there is stratified representation of race, ethnicity, and language or if there is under- or over-identification of certain groups. Based on observations of ILC, IAC, and EBC classrooms during site visits, the Core Team noted a wide variety of instructional models and expectations, with minimal connection to a continuum of support towards the least restrictive environment. 25