A Comprehensive Audit of PK-12 Special Education Programs for the Virginia Beach City Public School System

Transcription

1 A Comprehensive Audit of PK-12 Special Education Programs for the Virginia Beach City Public School System FINAL REPORT Submitted to: Dr. James Merrill, Superintendent Virginia Beach City Public Schools 2512 George Mason Drive Virginia Beach, VA Submitted by: July 7, 2008

2 A COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT OF PK 12 SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Final Report Submitted to: Dr. James Merrill Superintendent Virginia Beach City Public Schools 2512 George Mason Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia Submitted by: 2123 Centre Pointe Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida July 7, 2008

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PEER DIVISION COMPARISONS Overview of Virginia Beach City Public Schools Comparison of Virginia Beach City Public Schools With Similar School Divisions STAFFING AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY Special Education Service Delivery General Education Service Delivery POLICIES, PROCEDURES, ASSESSMENT, STUDENT PERFORMANCE, AND PARENT INVOLVEMENT Policies and Procedures Assessment and Student Performance Parental Involvement FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT/SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS Budget Activities Financial Management for Special Education Transportation of Special Education Students Comparative Costs for Special Education Services APPENDICES Appendix A: Survey Results

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2007, Virginia Beach City Public Schools (VBCPS) contracted with MGT of America, Inc. (MGT) to conduct a Comprehensive Audit of pk-12 Special Education Programs in the division. As stated in the RFP, areas of study for the special education audit included the following: 1. Review of staffing and organization of the division s special education program personnel. Central administration School based administration Teachers Teacher assistants Support staff (psychologists, social workers, etc.) 2. Review of local administrative guidelines in regard to procedures and protocols as required by the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs in Virginia. Communication centrally to schools Support to schools in administrating special education Communication of procedures, practices, and rights in special education to parents of students with disabilities 3. Review of outcomes for students with disabilities. Appropriate identification as a student with a disability, including prereferral strategies Compliance with requirements of the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) Assessment of students with disabilities 4. Review of the provision of free appropriate public education (FAPE) in special education programs. Least restrictive environment Access to the general curriculum Placement (Level 1 and Level 2) Inclusion Related services 5. Review of data to identify areas of disproportionality and recommendations of strategies to address these areas. 6. Cost analysis of the provision of the comprehensive special education program. MGT of America, Inc. Page i

6 Executive Summary Private school Contractual services (SECEP, Day Treatment, private placements) Per pupil costs (differentiation by disability) Personnel costs Auxiliary costs (technology, nursing care, transportation) Budget management 7. Review of record keeping system for special education. Maintenance of records Submission of reports and documents Accuracy and efficiency in data collection 8. Comparative analysis with similar school divisions in the management of special education. Instructional staffing Central office staffing Identification of students with disabilities State Performance Plan Mediation, Complaints, Due Process MGT s Methodology Our methodology was based on our extensive experience conducting similar reviews throughout the country. We conducted a comprehensive background review and developed a detailed work plan and time lines for the study as called for by the Request for Proposal. Building on our prior experience with programmatic and financial studies of services for special education students, we conducted a systematic review of specific background information required to plan a study of this magnitude, including: An initial analysis of the VBCPS Special Education Program. An initial systematic analysis and documentation of programs for special education students needs based on a review of research and literature findings. Federal and Commonwealth information on special education funding and programs. Exhibit 1 lists the requirements and the quantitative and qualitative methodologies that we used to address the requirements. From our review of the literature and based on our experience, we identified the essential programmatic and financial components that were evaluated in this study. Exhibit 2 lists the review s components under the classifications of preventive strategies, program planning and design, program evaluation and management, and resource allocation and utilization. MGT of America, Inc. Page ii

7 Executive Summary EXHIBIT 1 ANALYSIS OF REVIEW TASKS SPECIFIC REVIEW TASKS Review of staffing and organization of the division s special education personnel Review of local administrative guidelines in regard to procedures and protocols as required by the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs in Virginia Review of outcomes, as related to NCLB Review of appropriate identification as a student with a disability, including prereferral strategies Review of compliance with requirements of the Individual Educational Plan Review of assessment procedures for students with disabilities Review of the provision of FAPE in special education programs Review of data to identify areas of ethnic and racial disproportionality Cost analysis of the provision of the comprehensive special education program Review of record keeping system for special education Comparative analysis with similar school divisions DOCUMENT REVIEWS STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ONSITE DATA COLLECTION FORMS FINANCIAL UTILIZATION PROFILE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MGT of America, Inc. Page iii

8 Executive Summary EXHIBIT 2 ESSENTIAL PROGRAM COMPONENTS Preventive Strategies Screening and Staffing Processes Effectiveness of Mandated and Non-mandated Remedial Programs Program Planning and Design for Division Special Education Programs Needs Assessment Stakeholder Involvement Curriculum and Instruction Placement Criteria Staffing Analysis Planning and Budgeting Auxiliary Services (i.e., transportation) Program Evaluation and Management Program Management Academic Performance Transition Planning Staff and Leadership Resource Allocation, Utilization, and Financial Management Resource Allocation Trends (Federal, State, Local) Resource Equity Cost-Effectiveness Special Education Operating Budget Accounting and Financial Management Based on research findings and discussion with MGT s special education technical advisors, we created a list of program quality and fiscal indicators specifically related to programs for students with exceptional needs. These indicators were used to address the list of primary evaluation objectives for the programmatic and fiscal review of special education programs. Exhibit 3 lists the broad set of questions derived from the primary evaluation objectives and the methods we used to collect the data and information required to address each question. The methods required reviews of national benchmarks; an extensive examination of documents; surveys of multiple stakeholders; and onsite interviews, observations, and data collection. MGT of America, Inc. Page iv

9 Executive Summary EXHIBIT 3 SAMPLE SPECIAL EDUCATION REVIEW QUESTIONS AND INDICATORS EVALUATION QUESTIONS METHODS, INDICATORS, AND MEASURES Early Intervening Services Are early intervening services effective to ensure students are appropriately referred and assessed for special education services? Prereferral and assessment documentation review, surveys, and interviews with administrators, teachers, support staff, and parents. Program Planning and Design Are IEPs compliant with state and federal regulations? Are special education programs consistent with requirements for provision of FAPE to include least restrictive environment, access to general curriculum, placement (Level 1 and Level 2), inclusion, and related services? Are student identification procedures consistent to ensure appropriate identification of students by ethnicity and race? Are the student performance measures in place adequate, appropriate, and monitored to optimize transition planning and outcomes? What methods are used to establish an appropriately consistent curriculum throughout the school division? What methods are used for planning and budgeting? IEP documentation review. Program documentation review, surveys, systematic observations in schools and classrooms and interviews with administrators, teachers, support staff, and parents. Analysis of student data, evaluation procedures, systematic observations in schools and classrooms and interviews with administrators, teachers, support staff, and parents. Analysis of standardized and alternative assessments, and IEPs. Systematic observations in schools. Interviews with teachers, students, administrators, and support staff. Interviews and surveys with administrators, teachers, support staff, and parents. Input from technical advisors. Program documentation and review. Program Evaluation and Management Are local administrative guidelines, procedures, and protocols consistent with the Regulations Governing Special Education Programs in Virginia? How does the division compare to similar school divisions in the management of special education, including instructional staffing, central office staffing, identification of students with disabilities, State Performance Plan, and complaints, mediation and due process? How does the availability of least restrictive environment programs compare to best practices? How do similar programs vary in outcomes among schools in the division? Analysis of local administrative guidelines, procedures, and protocols, interviews and surveys with administrators, teachers, support staff, and parents. Analysis of comparison school divisions. Input from technical advisors. Review of standardized and alternative testing results, observations, and program evaluations. MGT of America, Inc. Page v

10 Executive Summary EXHIBIT 3 (Continued) SAMPLE SPECIAL EDUCATION REVIEW QUESTIONS AND INDICATORS Are special education students receiving an appropriate education, including intensive instruction to maximize academic excellence? Do students with disabilities participate in state and local assessments? Do students in similar programs across the division have access to similar resources? Is ongoing instruction satisfactory and relevant to prepare students for maximum community living skills? How do transition planning and planning resources and services compare to best practices? To what extent do students with exceptional needs develop competencies commensurate with their potential? Is the record keeping system accurate and efficient for maintaining student data, reports, and documents? Review of written procedures and criteria for programs. Analysis of standardized and alternative test results. Systematic observations of programs. Interviews and surveys with key stakeholders. Review of student assessment data. Review of records, classroom observations, and interviews with multiple stakeholders. Interviews with teachers, support staff, administrators, and parents; surveys; and observation of schools and programs. Input from the technical advisors. Comparisons of survey and interview results. Systematic review and analysis of all data gathered from documentation reviews, surveys, testing, interviews, and observations of programs. System review of student records. Resource Allocation, Utilization, and Financial Management Is the staffing and organization of the division s special education program personnel adequate to ensure adequate oversight implementation of special education and related services? What are the costs for the provision of comprehensive special education services in private schools, for contractual services, per pupil costs, personnel costs, auxiliary costs, and budget management? What was the flow of dollars over the past three years from federal, state, and local sources (breakdown by source)? How were federal, state, and local dollars used over the past three years to deliver mandated and optional services in the division? In which areas can actions be taken to utilize funds more efficiently and create cost improvements? Source: Created by MGT of America, Inc., Analysis and comparison of staffing and organizational structure for central administration, school-based administration, teachers, teacher assistants, and support staff. Review budget and expenditure reports for all funding sources. Review budget and expenditure reports for all fund sources. Review budget and expenditure reports for all fund sources. Interviews, surveys, and development of a fiscal profile for each program. Systematic review of all quantitative and qualitative data collected from interviews, surveys, and onsite reviews. MGT of America, Inc. Page vi

11 Executive Summary We used the following instruments to collect data and information: Stakeholder Survey Instruments The instruments created to survey administrators, special education teachers, general education teachers, and support staff were developed from the evaluation questions. The stakeholder surveys were tailored so that the opinions of multiple stakeholder groups were compared in the analysis of the results. The purpose of the surveys was to provide information on indicators of program quality and cost effectiveness. Results from a recent parent survey were provided to the review team. Onsite Data Collection Package Several instruments were used by trained and experienced consultants assigned to conduct onsite visits. Examples include: A. Instrument for Onsite Data Collection This instrument collected specific data and information to expand on the information gleaned from our earlier review of pupil personnel and special education program documentation. It included data and information about policies and procedures; preventative strategies; programs provided (both in-division and out-of-division) for special education students; and evaluations conducted by the school or program. B. Onsite Interview Form This form was used to conduct personal interviews with the key stakeholders of pupil personnel and special education services at both the division and school levels. It solicited opinions about the program models, roles of stakeholders, and barriers to successful maximization of educational goals and objectives of these students. C. Financial Utilization Profile A financial utilization profile was developed to provide onsite information on the cost factors that vary among programs with similar titles. In a site-based system of service delivery, costs vary among similar programs depending on the emphasis given to particular forms of service delivery (e.g., students with specific learning disabilities may be served at one school in a pull-out setting with a special education teacher; however, in the next school the same type of student may receive less pull-out support and benefit instead from the aide assigned to the general education classroom. While both options may be programmatically sound, they represent different cost factors in the analysis). The financial utilization profile assisted the financial evaluation team in determining the qualitative difference among programs when costs are compared. MGT of America, Inc. Page vii

12 Executive Summary The MGT review team visited 18 schools during our onsite visit. Our selection process permitted the involvement of the division s elementary, middle/junior high, and high schools, as well as special schools. Other variables that were considered in selecting the sample included: Student enrollment and student ethnic composition. School wealth (free and reduced lunch rate) and total expenditures per student. Types of program focus and unique programs provided for students with exceptional needs. Special education funds per student. Percent of students classified as students with exceptional needs. Geographic distribution throughout the school division. Additionally, MGT reviewed a random sampling of IEPs. In summary, our methodology documented and evaluated the programmatic and financial aspects of services offered by the special education department in the division s public schools. We followed our detailed work plan for conducting this important project as presented in our original proposal. Existing Reports and Data Sources During the period between project initiation and the beginning of our onsite review, we simultaneously conducted many activities. Among these were the identification and collection of existing reports and data sources that provided us with available recent information related to the various special education components. Diagnostic Review MGT met with VBCPS Special Education staff in January 2008 to initiate the project and begin start-up activities. The group clarified the goals and policy concerns of the review, established lines of communication, shared the data request list, collected background materials, and revised the original work plan based on the meeting outcomes. Employee Surveys To secure the involvement of central office administrators, principals, teachers, and instructional assistants in the focus and scope of the review, surveys were prepared and disseminated online. The survey results are presented in Appendix A of this report. MGT of America, Inc. Page viii

13 Executive Summary Conducting the Formal Onsite Review During the week of January 28, 2008, four MGT consultants conducted onsite visits to the central office and in-division schools. They reviewed the data prepared by the division and conducted over 80 interviews with central office staff, board members, and community members. MGT conducted a parent/community open house one evening during the onsite week at the Laskin Road Annex. The division advertised the community open house in the following ways: Distributed a news release to local media a brief story on the open house ran in Saturday s Virginian-Pilot. Placed the open house information on the home page of the division s Web site. Placed an ad in The Beacon, the Virginia Beach tabloid. Designed a flyer which the Department of Curriculum and Instruction provided to schools for distribution. Booked media interviews/public service announcements on local television and radio stations. There were 59 participants in the open house. MGT also provided a Web site for community members who were unable to attend the community forum to participate. MGT s full report provides findings, 19 commendations, and 31 recommendations to meet the required outcomes of the RFP. Where appropriate, we have included costs or cost savings to implement the recommendations as well as implementation strategies and time lines for implementation. If the costs could not be quantified in dollars, MGT estimated the staff labor time required to implement the recommendation. We have also provided best practice examples with many of our recommendations. Commendations The Virginia Beach City Public Schools have implemented many commendable practices that are detailed in the full report. Below is a list of the commendations. The division demonstrates exemplary practices by providing real-world work experience for students with moderate disabilities (Commendation 3-A). The division provides a continuum of special education and related services for students with disabilities (Commendation 3-B). The division is commended for developing the Five-Year Special Education Staff Development Plan (Commendation 3-C). MGT of America, Inc. Page ix

14 Executive Summary The division demonstrates exemplary instructional leadership in the schools, and commitment to improving the academic performance of all students (Commendation 3-D). VBCPS is commended for the development and maintenance of curriculum guides that are up-to-date and aligned with the Virginia Standards of Learning (Commendation 3-E). VBCPS is commended for providing a comprehensive special education policies and procedures manual to schools throughout the division (Commendation 4-A). VBCPS is commended for the effective and timely implementation of the special education process for referral, assessment, identification, and placement of students with disabilities (Commendation 4-B). VBCPS is commended for adhering to mediation, due process and, complaint procedures of the Regulations Governing Special Education for Children with Disabilities in Virginia (Commendation 4-C). VBCPS is commended for its active and effective Special Education Advisory Committee (Commendation 4-D). VBCPS is commended for recruiting, hiring, and maintaining related services staff and for providing an array of related services based on the individual needs of students with disabilities (Commendation 4-E). VBCPS is commended for providing exemplary early identification and child find processes and procedures (Commendation 4-F). VBCPS is commended for providing the necessary documents and central office assistance to support well-functioning student support teams (Commendation 4-G). VBCPS is commended for consistently providing information and training to parents of students with disabilities (Commendation 4-H). VBCPS has a budget development process that provides a credible method for establishing the necessary resources to provide special education services (Commendation 5-A). The Office of Programs for Exceptional Children consistently operates within its originally appropriated general fund budgets (Commendation 5-B). The OPEC staff is commended for being aggressive in identifying the total costs of providing special education services for supplemental schedule B for the fiscal year (Commendation 5-C). The Transportation Department utilizes an effective, state-of-the-art bus scheduling system to support both regular education and special education students (Commendation 5-D). MGT of America, Inc. Page x

15 Executive Summary VBCPS is commended for providing special education services with less than the average requirement for local resources compared to peer divisions (Commendation 5-E). VBCPS is commended for providing special education services for a cost that, compared to the relationship of the average teacher salaries and the average per student cost for special education, appears to be consistent with the relationship to the average teacher salary (Commendation 5-F). Recommendations The report has a total of 31 recommendations, listed below. Reorganize the Office of Programs for Exceptional Children (OPEC) (Recommendation 2-1). Update OPEC job descriptions for special education coordinators and teacher specialists (Recommendation 2-2). Transfer psychological services, social work services, homebound services, and Section 504 to the Office of Guidance and Student Records and establish a comprehensive approach to the delivery of student services throughout the division (Recommendation 2-3). Reassign the Early Discoveries pre-kindergarten program to the Office of Elementary Instructional Services (Recommendation 2-4). Develop an integrated therapy model to support inclusive education and team teaching (Recommendation 2-5). Nominate a representative from OPEC to participate in the Aspiring Special Education Leaders Academy (Recommendation 2-6). Conduct a data-driven evaluation of inclusive education models using assessment tools that focus on producing qualitative results (Recommendation 3-1). Develop or adopt a curriculum for students with moderate or severe disabilities that is aligned with the Virginia Aligned Standards of Learning and the Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (Recommendation 3-2). Revise and implement the VBCPS lesson plan policy (Recommendation 3-3). Develop common time for special education and general education teachers to allow appropriate consultation and collaborative planning for their students, including those with learning disabilities (Recommendation 3-4). MGT of America, Inc. Page xi

16 Executive Summary Continue to integrate disability-related learning strategies and differentiated instruction into the general education curriculum and to provide ongoing professional development to teachers and staff (Recommendation 3-5). Improve articulation practices at all grade levels (Recommendation 3-6). Assign one person to oversee the process of dispute resolution, including frequent updates to the tracking of mediations, due processes, and parental complaints (Recommendation 4-1). Update Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) to include measurable annual goals and provide teachers with examples of commendable annual goals (Recommendation 4-2). Update the VBCPS Administrative Guidelines, Special Education manual and include a section on postsecondary transition planning (Recommendation 4-3). Implement clearly defined transition outcomes based on a data-driven model (Recommendation 4-4). Implement systematic and explicit instruction of the curriculum as aligned with the Virginia Standards of Learning (Recommendation 4-5). Provide training to Student Support Team members on research-based intervention strategies that have proven successful for all students, particularly specific ethnic populations who are over-represented in receiving special education services (Recommendation 4-6). Consistently monitor the Student Support Team recommendations for interventions for all students, especially the recommendations for Black males and English language learners (Recommendation 4-7). Implement a divisionwide positive behavioral support program (Recommendation 4-8). Develop an OPEC summary page in the budget that displays the total budget for all OPEC activities (Recommendation 5-1). Expand the section of the budget document that addresses staffing standards to include the allocation of special education personnel (Recommendation 5-2). Establish a process to track the mobility of special education students. (Recommendation 5-3). Expand the use of account codes within the special education programs to identify account codes for each disability category (Recommendation 5-4). MGT of America, Inc. Page xii

17 Executive Summary Assign responsibility for preparation of supplemental schedule B to the Office of Business Services (Recommendation 5-5). Gather data relating to the number of students requiring one-to-one assistance and the impact of the expanded inclusion model to support communication regarding special education during the budget development process and formal reporting on the special education program (Recommendation 5-6). Explore the option of developing an annual report of special education activities that will include both financial and program information to communicate the issues associated with the management of special education programs at VBCPS (Recommendation 5-7). Revise the expenditure accounts section of the annual budget for transportation to include two vehicle operation programs: one for regular education and one for special education (Recommendation 5-8). Develop an interface between the student information and transportation scheduling systems for students with disabilities. (Recommendation 5-9). Work with other divisions and the Virginia Department of Education to improve guidelines for preparation of supplemental schedules A and B (Recommendation 5-10). Form a committee (the same committee identified in Recommendation 5-10) to determine how to use the data contained in supplemental schedules A and B more effectively (Recommendation 5-11). Fiscal Impact Based on analyses of data obtained from interviews with VBCPS personnel, parents, and the community at large; VBCPS surveys; state and school division documents; and first-hand observations during the review, MGT developed 31 recommendations, several with direct fiscal implications. As shown in Exhibit 4, full implementation of the recommendations in this report would generate net costs (including one-time costs) of $36,945 over a five-year period. It is important to note that costs and savings presented in this report are in dollars and do not reflect increases due to salary or inflation adjustments. It is also important to note that many of the recommendations MGT made without specifying a fiscal impact are expected to result in a net cost savings to VBCPS, depending on how the division elects to implement them. There are some recommendations (Recommendation 3-2, 4-2, 4-6, and 4-7) where the fiscal impacts cannot be precisely quantified but where additional costs may be incurred. In those instances, MGT has provided pertinent cost factors the division should consider. MGT of America, Inc. Page xiii

18 Executive Summary CHAPTER REFERENCE EXHIBIT 4 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SAVINGS (COSTS) ANNUAL SAVINGS (COSTS) TOTAL FIVE YEAR SAVINGS (COSTS) ONE-TIME SAVINGS (COSTS) CHAPTER 2: STAFFING AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 2-1 Reassign a Special Education Coordinator (Page 2-4) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($500) Participate in the Aspiring Special 2-6 Education Leaders Academy (Page 2-20) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($15,405) $0 TOTAL SAVINGS/(COSTS) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($3,081) ($15,405) ($500) 4-8 Implement Positive Behavior Support Program (Page 4-53) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($21,040) $0 TOTAL SAVINGS/(COSTS) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($4,208) ($21,040) $0 TOTAL SAVINGS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL (COSTS) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($36,445) ($500) NET SAVINGS (COSTS) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($7,289) ($36,445) ($500) TOTAL NET SAVINGS (COSTS) LESS ONE TIME SAVINGS (COSTS) ($36,945) MGT of America, Inc. Page xiv

19 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PEER DIVISION COMPARISONS

20 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PEER DIVISION COMPARISONS In December 2007, Virginia Beach City Public Schools (VBCPS) contracted with MGT to conduct a comprehensive special education audit including a review of staffing and organization of the division s special education program personnel; review of local administrative guidelines required by the state regulations governing special education programs in Virginia; review of outcomes, as related to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); review of the provision of free appropriate public education (FAPE) in special education programs; review of data to identify disproportionality in special education; cost analysis of the comprehensive special education program; review of record keeping system for special education; and comparative analysis with similar school divisions in the management of special education. 1.1 Overview of Virginia Beach City Public Schools Virginia Beach is a coastal community along Virginia s shoreline, located approximately 200 miles south of Washington, D.C., and 100 miles southeast of Richmond, Virginia. According to the 2005 United States Census, Virginia Beach is a city of more than 430,000 citizens, and is the 37 th largest city in the United States. Virginia Beach is one of the Seven Cities of Hampton Roads, along with Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Suffolk. VBCPS has a total of 86 schools and centers serving more than 70,000 students. According to the VBCPS December 1, 2006 child count, 10,133 students were receiving special education and related services. In addition, there are a number of secondary/post-secondary specialty centers. According to the division s Web site: The mission of Virginia Beach City Public Schools, in partnership with our entire community, is to ensure that each student is empowered with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the challenges of the future. In this effort, VBCPS has established the following vision statement: Virginia Beach City Public Schools will provide services and programs to engage its clientele in an exciting, learning environment. The School Division will excel in all aspects of performance, enhance student achievement, bring recognition to the community, and establish itself as a premier leader in the education industry. With continuous improvement, the results of employee efforts will make VBCPS, The School District of Choice. The VBCPS School Board consists of 11 members and is responsible for the effective and efficient operation of the school division. The School Board hosts an annual retreat to develop an annual work plan and to affirm the long-term strategic goals. According to School Board policy, the board will assure that the division will provide FAPE services to students with disabilities, ages Services are provided in the most appropriate, least restrictive environment, as outlined in the student s Individualized MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1

21 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons Educational Program (IEP). The IEP is developed in cooperation with the student s parents, educators, administrators, and other invited participants. Sometimes the student is involved. The Office of Programs for Exceptional Children s portion of the division s Web site describes the services offered to students with disabilities, including but not limited to the following: Special curriculum, equipment, and materials are used for instruction as described in each student s IEP. Whenever appropriate, the materials and curriculum used in general education are also used in the student s special education program. All students receive special education services from teachers who are approved by the state to teach students with disabilities. Music, art, library, physical education, extracurricular activities, and nursing services are available to students with disabilities. Based upon each student s IEP, related services (e.g., speech therapy, occupational therapy, or physical therapy) and other resources are also available to students with disabilities. 1.2 Comparison of Virginia Beach City Public Schools with Similar School Divisions Educational programs, including special education programs, are frequently evaluated by analyzing trends related to student performance, staffing, and fiscal allocations over several school years. Additionally, a comprehensive programmatic audit of special education services often includes an examination of how the programs and financial resources compare with programs and resources in similar school divisions and with the average for the Commonwealth of Virginia. These data contribute to an understanding of the unique demographic characteristics, resources, and expenditures of the VBCPS special education programs and supplement the analysis of the issues and challenges faced by school division managers. MGT and division staff collaborated on the identification of criteria and the selection of peer divisions. MGT cautions the reader not to over-interpret the data as many other variables affect the data presented. MGT addresses some of those variables in the full report. Two sets of comparative data are used to describe VBCPS. First, comparisons are made with selected Virginia school divisions identified as similar to VBCPS in their percentage of special education students. Second, comparisons are made with out-ofstate school districts, including some with high military populations. The school divisions in Virginia selected for comparison are: Prince William County Public Schools. Loudoun County Public Schools. Chesapeake City Public Schools. Chesterfield County Public Schools. Fairfax County Public Schools. Henrico County Public Schools. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-2

22 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons The school districts outside of Virginia chosen for comparison are: Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, TN. Northside Independent School District, TX. Anne Arundel County Public Schools, MD. Charleston County School District, SC. When comparing information across databases of multiple districts, a common set of operational definitions should be established so that comparable data are analyzed to the greatest extent possible. For example, an administrator in one school district may be categorized as a non-administrative coordinator in another school district. Many of the national statistical databases specifically those developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) compile data using standardized criteria to account for this variance. Thus, MGT used nationally standardized data to promote relevant and valuable comparisons whenever possible. Information displayed in the exhibits of this chapter includes data from the following reports: Virginia Department of Education. Standard & Poor s SchoolDataDirect Web site. U.S. Census Bureau. NCES Common Core of Data. Exhibit 1-1 shows the total student population, student population per 1,000 general population, percentages of students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students, and number of schools for the Virginia comparison divisions for the school year. As shown, compared to the division average VBCPS had: A higher total student population. A lower percentage of students with disabilities. A higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students A comparable number of schools. A lower student population per 1,000 general population. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-3

23 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons EXHIBIT 1-1 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPARISON SCHOOL DIVISIONS IN VIRGINIA ENROLLMENT, PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS, AND NUMBER OF SCHOOLS SCHOOL YEAR STUDENT POPULATION PER 1,000 GENERAL POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES SCHOOL DIVISION TOTAL STUDENT POPULATION* PERCENTAGE OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Virginia Beach City 72, % Prince William County 66, % Loudoun County 46, % Chesapeake City 39, % Chesterfield County 56, % TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS Fairfax County** 160, % Henrico County 46, % Division Average 70, % Sources: Virginia Department of Education, schooldatadirect.org, U.S Census, *March 31 Average Daily Membership (ADM). **Fairfax County data include Fairfax City. Exhibit 1-2 displays the total student population, student population per 1,000 general population, percentages of students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students, and number of schools for the out-of-state comparison districts for the school year. As shown, VBCPS had: A higher total student population and percentage of economically disadvantaged students when compared to its peer districts. A lower student population per 1,000 general population, and lower percentage of students with disabilities compared to its peers. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-4

24 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons EXHIBIT 1-2 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OUT-OF-STATE COMPARISON SCHOOL DISTRICTS ENROLLMENT, PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS, AND NUMBER OF SCHOOLS SCHOOL YEAR STUDENT POPULATION PER 1,000 GENERAL POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL STUDENT POPULATION* PERCENTAGE OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED Virginia Beach City 72, % Metropolitan Nashville 73, % NA 132 Northside ISD 74, ** 14.1% TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS Anne Arundel County 73, % Charleston County 43, % District Average 67, % Sources: Virginia Department of Education, schooldatadirect.org, U.S Census, NCES CCD, *March 31 Average Daily Membership (ADM). **Student population per 1,000 general population of San Antonio City. Exhibit 1-3 displays the number of staff per 1,000 students for the Virginia comparison divisions for the school year. As shown, VBCPS had a: Comparable number of principals and assistant principals per 1,000 students as well as a comparable number of guidance counselors and librarians per 1,000 students when compared to the division average. Lower number of teachers per 1,000 students than the division average. Higher number of teacher aides per 1,000 students than the division average. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-5

25 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons EXHIBIT 1-3 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPARISON SCHOOL DIVISIONS IN VIRGINIA STAFF PER 1,000 STUDENTS SCHOOL YEAR GUIDANCE SCHOOL DIVISION END-OF-YEAR AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP PRINCIPALS/ ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS PER 1,000 STUDENTS TEACHERS PER 1,000 STUDENTS TECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTORS PER 1,000 STUDENTS TEACHER AIDES PER 1,000 STUDENTS COUNSELORS AND LIBRARIANS PER 1,000 STUDENTS Virginia Beach City 72, Prince William County 67, Loudoun County 47, Chesapeake City 39, Chesterfield County 56, Fairfax County* 163, Henrico County 46, Division Average 70, Source: Virginia Department of Education, *Fairfax County data include Fairfax City. Exhibit 1-4 shows the staff totals for the out-of-state comparison districts for the school year. Please note that Charleston may use a different definition of District Administrator and Instructional Aide when reporting to NCES. As shown, VBCPS had: Lower numbers of school administrators and guidance counselors than the district average. The highest number of district administrators, full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers, and instructional aides among the comparison districts. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-6

26 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons EXHIBIT 1-4 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OUT-OF-STATE COMPARISON SCHOOL DISTRICTS STAFF TOTALS SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL STUDENTS SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS TOTAL TEACHERS INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES GUIDANCE COUNSELORS Virginia Beach City 74, , , Metropolitan Nashville 72, , Northside ISD 78, , Anne Arundel County 73, , Charleston County 42, * 3, * District Average 68, , Source: NCES, CCD, *Charleston may use a different definition of District Administrator and Instructional Aide. Exhibit 1-5 shows the eligibility of students for free and reduced lunches for the Virginia peer divisions for the school year. As shown, VBCPS had higher percentages of students eligible for free and reduced lunches than the comparison average. EXHIBIT 1-5 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPARISON SCHOOL DIVISIONS IN VIRGINIA FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH SCHOOL YEAR SCHOOL DIVISION FREE LUNCH PERCENT FREE LUNCH (%) REDUCED LUNCH PERCENT REDUCED LUNCH (%) Virginia Beach City 13, % 6, % Prince William County 13, % 5, % Loudoun County 3, % 1, % Chesapeake City 8, % 1, % Chesterfield County 6, % 2, % Fairfax County* 22, % 9, % Henrico County 7, % 1, % Division Average 10, % 4, % Source: Virginia Department of Education, *Fairfax County data include Fairfax City. Exhibit 1-6 shows total operating expenditure per pupil in the Virginia peer divisions for the through school years. As shown, VBCPS had a: Consistently lower operating expenditure per pupil each year than the peer average. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-7

27 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons EXHIBIT 1-6 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPARISON SCHOOL DIVISIONS IN VIRGINIA OPERATING EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL THROUGH SCHOOL YEARS EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL SCHOOL DIVISION Virginia Beach City $7,951 $8,633 $9,113 Prince William County $8,266 $8,992 $9,384 Loudoun County $10,334 $11,246 $11,975 Chesapeake City $7,724 $8,439 $9,051 Chesterfield County $7,141 $7,467 $7,858 Fairfax County* $10,770 $11,249 $12,272 Henrico County $7,105 $7,637 $7,953 Division Average $8,470 $9,094 $9,658 Source: Virginia Department of Education, *Fairfax County data include Fairfax City. Exhibit 1-7 shows the through total operating expenditure per pupil for the out-of-state comparison districts according to Standard & Poor s SchoolDataDirect Web site. As indicated, VBCPS had a per pupil total operating expenditure comparable to the peer average in , and a slightly higher expenditure than the average in EXHIBIT 1-7 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OUT-OF-STATE COMPARISON SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPERATING EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL THROUGH SCHOOL YEARS EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL SCHOOL DISTRICT Virginia Beach City $7,730 $8,363 NA Metropolitan Nashville $8,304 $8,087 NA Northside ISD $6,378 $6,320 NA Anne Arundel County $8,239 $8,774 NA Charleston County $7,542 $8,315 NA District Average $7,639 $7,972 NA Source: schooldatadirect.org, Data from this source are reported slightly differently from Virginia Department of Education data, and are not available for Exhibit 1-8 shows the percentage of students enrolled in special education from the through school years for the Virginia peer divisions. As shown, the VBCPS percentage of special education students was comparable to the peer divisions in and lower in the subsequent years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-8

28 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons EXHIBIT 1-8 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPARISON SCHOOL DIVISIONS IN VIRGINIA PERCENTAGE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS THROUGH SCHOOL YEARS SCHOOL DIVISION PERCENT INCREASE/ DECREASE Virginia Beach City 14.1% 12.3% 12.9% -0.03% Prince William County 11.9% 11.6% 11.4% -0.58% Loudoun County 10.9% 10.7% 10.8% -0.66% Chesapeake City 18.0% 16.9% 16.0% 0.17% Chesterfield County 15.1% 14.3% 13.8% -0.71% Fairfax County* 14.3% 14.0% 14.1% 0.12% Henrico County 14.3% 13.3% 13.7% -0.27% Division Average 14.0% 13.3% 13.2% -0.84% Source: schooldatadirect.org, *Fairfax County data include Fairfax City. Exhibit 1-9 shows the percentage of students enrolled in special education from the through school years for the out-of-state comparison districts. As shown, VBCPS had: A lower percentage of special education students than the comparison average in and A comparable percentage of special education students in EXHIBIT 1-9 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OUT-OF-STATE COMPARISON SCHOOL DISTRICTS PERCENTAGE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS THROUGH SCHOOL YEARS SCHOOL DISTRICT PERCENT INCREASE/ DECREASE Virginia Beach City 14.1% 12.3% 12.9% -1.20% Metropolitan Nashville 19.7% 17.9% 12.5% -7.20% Northside ISD 14.6% 14.1% 13.3% -1.30% Anne Arundel 13.3% 13.6% 12.6% -0.70% Charleston 14.1% 13.8% 13.3% -0.80% District Average 15.1% 14.3% 12.9% -2.24% Source: schooldatadirect.org, MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-9

29 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons Exhibit 1-10 shows the number and percentage of total special education students enrolled in each exceptionality category in VBCPS and the comparison school divisions in Virginia. As shown for the school year, when compared to the division average VBCPS had: Lower percentages of students with mental retardation, hearing impairments, speech or language impairments, other health impairments, multiple disabilities, and autism. Higher percentages of students with severe disability, specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, and developmental delay. Comparable percentages of students with visual impairments, emotional impairments, orthopedic impairments, and traumatic brain injury. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-10

30 Introduction and Peer Division Comparisons EXHIBIT 1-10 VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMPARISON SCHOOL DIVISIONS IN VIRGINIA SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS BY DISABILITY SCHOOL YEAR MENTAL RETARDATION SEVERE DISABILITY HEARING IMPAIRMENTS SPEECH OR LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS # OF % OF # OF % OF # OF % OF # OF % OF # OF % OF SCHOOL DIVISION STUDENTS TOTAL STUDENTS TOTAL STUDENTS TOTAL STUDENTS TOTAL STUDENTS TOTAL Virginia Beach City % % % 1, % % Prince William County % % % 2, % % Loudoun County % % % % % Chesapeake City % % % 1, % % Chesterfield County % % % 1, % % Fairfax County* % % % 3, % % Henrico County % % % % % Division Average % % % 1, % % SCHOOL DIVISION EMOTIONAL IMPAIRMENTS # OF STUDENTS % OF TOTAL ORTHOPEDIC IMPAIRMENTS # OF STUDENTS % OF TOTAL OTHER HEALTH IMPAIRMENTS # OF STUDENTS % OF TOTAL SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY # OF STUDENTS % OF TOTAL DEAF-BLINDNESS** # OF STUDENTS Virginia Beach City % % 1, % 4, % % Prince William County % % 1, % 2, % % Loudoun County % % % 1, % % Chesapeake City % % 1, % 2, % % Chesterfield County % % 1, % 3, % % Fairfax County* % % 3, % 10, % % Henrico County % % 1, % 2, % % % OF TOTAL Division Average % % 1, % 4, % % MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-11