North St. Paul Maplewood Oakdale School District #622. Special Education Program Evaluation

Transcription

1 North St. Paul Maplewood Oakdale School District #622 Special Education Program Evaluation December, 2007 North St. Paul-Maplewood- Oakdale Independent School District # East 12 th Avenue North St. Paul, Minnesota Conducted by Nancy Johnson and Associates: Nancy Johnson Stacy Haugen-McAllister

2 Table of Contents Preface... 1 Introduction... 2 Summary of Special Education Program Recommendations... 5 Special Education Enrollment... 7 December 1 Special Education Child Count by Disability... 8 Special Education Funding Standard 1 Special Education Staff and Facility Resources Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Standard 2 Special Education Personnel Training Needs Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Standard 3 Materials, Supplies and Equipment Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Standard 4 Compliance Procedures for Identification and Service Provision Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Standard 5 Maximizing the Least Restrictive Environment Opportunity Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Standard 6 Coordinating, Evaluating and Monitoring Special Education Programs Current Best Practices District 622 Findings ii

3 Standard 7 Measuring Student Progress Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Standard 8 Emphasizing Research Based Practices Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Standard 9 Building Climate: Supportive Environment for Special Education Current Best Practices District 622 Findings Special Education Perspective Data Parents of Children with Disabilities Findings Administrators, Teachers and Paraprofessionals References iii

4 Preface This special education program evaluation was requested by Patricia Phillips, Superintendent of School District 622, as a means to examine current district special education programs and practices. This special education program review comes from a need to examine current district special education programs and practices as a result of student enrollment changes in the district and turnover at the district administration levels in the past few years. In addition to student enrollment and administrative changes, there have been many changes at the state and federal level for special education practices after the federal reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004 and the federal No Child Left Behind Act of Nancy Johnson and Associates conducted on-site reviews in District 622 buildings and sites on September 24-26, 2007, October 15-17, 2007 and November 9, In addition to on-site individual interviews with administrators, regular and special education teachers, special education paraprofessionals, parents, and school board members, perception data was collected from surveys from regular education teachers, special education teachers, special education paraprofessionals, administrators, and parents of students with disabilities. Appreciation is extended to Superintendent Patty Phillips, the District 622 School Board, Special Services Director, Karon Joyer, district and building administrators, teachers, support staff, and parents who participated in the interviews and provided the requested information to assist with this evaluation. All participants are commended and thanked for their assistance, cooperation, openness, and for giving their time. These findings show a high regard for special education teachers in the district and their strong commitment to their students. It was evident that special education staff are considered a great asset for the educational program in every building. General education teachers, special education teachers and paraprofessionals, and building principals expressed the need for greater collaboration between regular and special education staff for improved outcomes for students with disabilities. The District and School Board are to be commended for their efforts to focus on improvements for the special education services for students with disabilities in the district. 1

5 Introduction The purpose of this special education program evaluation is to gather pertinent information and provide recommendations to the District 622 School Board and administration to improve the special education program of the district. An analysis of specific special education data for District 622 has been studied in accordance with state and federal mandates, best practices in special education, student needs, and the School District 622 mission of: A community collaborative dedicated to educating and empowering all learners to excel in our changing world. In addition to the district s mission statement, consideration was given to the six strategic directions for the district. They are: 1. Focus on Individual Student Growth and High Achievement 2. Focus on Attitudes and Actions that Assure Success for All 3. Align Schedule and Structure to Meet Student Needs 4. Modernize Technology to Increase Productivity, Learning and Better Prepare Students for the Real World 5. Engage in Professional Development to Improve Leadership and Quality of Instruction 6. Secure and Manage Money Resources Well Enough to Focus on Mission The vision statement for the Special Services department for School District 622, which includes special education, is: Learners with disabilities will lead independent and productive lives and have respect for themselves and others. This evaluation was conducted during the school year. Data collected was from a diverse bank of resources including: 1. December 1 special education child count reports for the past six years. 2. Surveys with questions about special education best practices were disseminated and findings analyzed. Surveys were sent to stakeholder groups representing parents, district and building administrators, regular education teachers, special education teachers, and special education paraprofessionals. District return rates were: District 622 Parents of students with disabilities Regular Education Teachers Special Education Teachers Special Education paraprofessionals Administrators 250 surveys returned 23% surveys returned 52% surveys returned 45% surveys returned 58% surveys returned 2

6 personal interviews were conducted including the following people: Parents Superintendent Special Education Teachers Occupational Therapists Special Education Supervisors School Nurses Special Education Auditor Special Education Paraprofessionals Special Education Coordinators School Psychologists School Board Members School Social Workers Directors of Special Services Director of Business Services (current and former) Director of Teaching and Learning Regular Education Teachers Building Administrators Educational Speech/Language Pathologists 4. Special Education student caseloads by building and teacher 5. Current best practices research for special education 6. Minnesota Total Special Education System (TSES) information 7. Review of curriculum processes related to special education 8. Reports from the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) Funding Reports System The program evaluation team consists of two special education administrators with multiple and varied experiences in teaching special education, special education and regular education administration, and leadership experience in continuous improvement projects. Nancy Johnson has more than 30 years of experience working in public schools and private education. Nancy has worked as a special education teacher with certifications in moderate to severe disabilities, mild to moderate disabilities, learning disabilities, and emotional and behavior disorders. In addition, she is licensed and has experience as a Director of Special Education, Superintendent, Elementary Principal and Middle School Principal. Nancy is currently the Special Education Director for the Fergus Falls Area Special Education Cooperative, which serves 9 school districts in west central Minnesota. Stacy Haugen-McAllister has more than 20 years of experience working in public and non public school educational settings. Stacy has worked as an Educational Speech/Language Pathologist for the Fergus Falls Area Special Education Cooperative, which serves 9 school districts in west central Minnesota. During those years, she also coached girls' basketball, volleyball and track and taught Driver's Education. She has a Director of Special Education license and K-12 Principal License. She is currently working as a Special Education Administrator for the Fergus Falls Area Special Education Cooperative. Stacy is also a peer compliance monitor for the Minnesota Department of Education. 3

7 The members of the program evaluation team found the School District 622 staff to be cordial, generally optimistic about potential changes, and they viewed this evaluation process as an opportunity for the district to implement systematic changes. Staff presented themselves as committed to the district, and the students they serve. During the interviews people appeared somewhat conflicted knowing that changes are needed and concerned about how the district will proceed with implementing changes. When reviewing this report, it is important to recognize that the findings are based on trends that surface when all (and usually random) data collection sources are collectively analyzed. This report does not intend to discredit issues or concerns that were not identified as a trend across the district. It is recommended that specific or particular issues shared by District 622 stakeholders should be addressed with appropriate district personnel. Improvement in the special education program for School District 622 can begin with the school board adopting the recommendations, suggestions, and plans presented from this report. 4

8 Summary of Special Education Program Recommendations 1. In every school district, communication is an essential component to program success. School District 622 staff need to follow and communicate clear and concise procedures and practices that are aligned to the district s mission statement and philosophies. In District 622, staff are not aware of the district procedures and practices that guide decision making for special education. Areas unclear to staff are budget allocations for special education, planning and staffing for new programs, decision making at the district level for special education, and how staff development trainings are determined. Special education leadership must establish and follow systematic district guiding practices and procedures that are clearly communicated to staff. Areas of communication must include the guidelines for special education budget allocations, including planning and staffing for new programs, the district s special education program philosophy and decision making, and staff training requirements. 2. Training for special education staff is vital for effective special education programs. Many staff requested training to become more effective in working with students with disabilities. Training is needed for District 622 special education staff and regular education teachers in the areas of modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities and effective collaboration. Training is needed for special education paraprofessionals for increased knowledge about disabilities and special education best practices, primarily inclusion practices. Training is needed for administrators to support decisions and practices to include more students with disabilities in general education classrooms within the district. Additional areas of training will be identified from a staff training needs assessment. The district needs to conduct a district-wide needs assessment to identify necessary staff development training and needs to provide training for all staff about how to work effectively with students with disabilities. 3. Parent responses strongly indicate positive connections with knowledgeable and dedicated special education personnel. Parent survey results show a general satisfaction with special education services from School District 622. Parents at all levels report good working relationships with staff and the special education team for their child. It is essential to continue these positive partnerships between parents and school personnel. Key practices to continue include: teachers communicating regularly with parents about their child, district level Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings, communication tools such as newsletters and electronic messages, parent representation on district committees, administrators participating in IEP meetings, and teachers seen by parents as advocates for students with disabilities. 4. Special education requires a range and/or continuum of services for students. This means services are available to students with mild to severe disabilities and must also be available for students at all age levels. In Minnesota, districts are 5

9 obligated to serve students with disabilities from birth through age 21. Findings show that a full range of programs is not available in each disability category and school building of School District 622. There is inequity in the availability of special education services in buildings in the district. Students of transition-age (14+ years old) must be able to access transition opportunities in their own school district to prepare them for adult life after they leave school. The special education program needs to provide a continuum of disability services for students of District 622. It is essential that students with special needs attend the school at the appropriate grade level with their community age mates. Also, the special education department needs to identify, support, and access existing community services and supports for transition-aged students in the District 622 communities. 5. Effective special education programs operate from a set of common goals and best practices. The regular and special education staff and administrators must adopt a common vision and attitude about how to best serve students based on established and communicated district mission statements and philosophies. The common vision must include providing services to students with disabilities in the same building that they would attend if they were not disabled and in the regular classroom with appropriate supports to the greatest extent possible. The current data shows that students with disabilities in District 622 are not being served in the least restrictive environment (LRE) when compared with other districts and with the state goals and averages. Data shows that in District 622 too many students are served in special education settings for too many minutes of each day and not enough students with disabilities are served in regular education settings. In addition, students from District 622 are served in separate schools, residential placements, and homebound or hospital placements at a rate more than twice the state average. District leadership must develop goals for LRE for students in the district to at least meet the state goals for percentage of students in each federal special education setting. Building administrators must put into practice the established least restrictive environment (LRE) goals for the district. 6. District 622 current organizational structure includes positions for special education supervisors and special education coordinators, in addition to the Special Services Director. Teachers and administrators need to understand the roles of these support positions. District leadership has recognized that they must clarify these roles, job duties, and responsibilities, and must communicate the job expectations to regular and special education staff in the buildings. This is currently being addressed from the special education district leaders through consistent communication with teachers and administrators across the district. The roles and job duties for supervisors and coordinators can be redefined for greater flexibility to meet the needs of the district and students with disabilities. 6

10 Special Education Enrollment The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) captures the special education child count for each school district on December 1 of each year. Special education child count is defined as a reporting to the Minnesota Department of Education the number of children with disabilities receiving special education and related services on December 1 of each year. While it is understood that during the school year this number predictably fluctuates in each district, it is the measure by which year to year comparisons and funding calculations are determined. Included in the special education enrollment are the students with disabilities who attend the nonpublic schools within the School District 622 boundaries and are served by public school special education staff. An examination of District 622 s special education child count reveals an increase for the last four years with the number of students identified as meeting special education disability criteria and receiving special education services. The increase in special education child count for District 622 does not follow an increase in the total district enrollment. Instead, there are more students with disabilities in the district as the total enrollment is decreasing. A three years comparison of District 622 K-12 total enrollment shows District 622 has 308 fewer students in the past 3 years (a 2% decrease) while the K-12 special education enrollment has gained 33 students (a 2% increase). Total K-12 Enrollment #change %change 15,125 14,707 14, % decrease Special Education K-12 Enrollment #change %change 1,699 1,698 1, % increase Data from MDE website: Enrollment/District/index/html Further analysis using the December 1 child count shows an increase of 49 students receiving special education services in the last four years: December 1, ,577 students in special education December 1, ,712 students in special education December 1, ,683 students in special education December 1, ,699 students in special education December 1, ,698 students in special education December 1, ,732 students in special education The School District 622 enrollment has declined at an annual rate of 2% while the special education population has grown at a rate of 2%. In comparing the past three years of the December 1 child count numbers, especially noticeable is the increase of the number of 7

11 students in the area of disability of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In 2004, there were 137 students in District 622 with ASD, in 2005 there were 167 students with ASD, and in 2006 there were 186 students with ASD. This increase mirrors the national and Minnesota numbers for increased students with ASD. Several factors contribute to the increase in the number of students identified with ASD. They include better training and improved identification of autism spectrum disorder, a broader definition is now used, and possible undetermined environmental and genetic factors. The Minnesota rates for ASD are expected to continue to increase at a rate of 10-17% a year. The national rates for ASD show that during the 1990s, the U.S. population grew by 13%, the disabilities population increased by 16%, and autism numbers increased by 172% in the U.S. December 1 Special Education Child Count by Disability The special education disability areas that District 622 serves are listed on the grid on page 10. Information is provided according to the number of children in each disability area (horizontal heading) and by age (vertical heading). Starting with the heading in the left hand corner of the grid 00, read across as to the number of students that are not yet one year old and in each area of disability meeting special education criteria. A further explanation of this grid would be: At the far left identified age of 7, the grid shows that 25 students are 7 years old and their primary disability area is Speech/Language. Reading across shows that 3 students with a primary disability of developmentally cognitive disabled (DCD) - severe to profound. Continuing to read across will show that 2 students who are age 7 have the primary disability of a hearing impairment, 14 students with autism spectrum disorder, and so on. After reading horizontally through the grid of 7 year olds, the last column is the sum of all students of each disability category and indicates that there are 75 students who are age 7 and meet at least one area of special education disability. It should be noted that some students meet one or more areas of special education. However, this unduplicated child count report indicates the child s primary disability. Each student is reported only once and by their primary disability. This is also referred to as an unduplicated child count. The upper right hand portion of the grid gives total enrollment and special education enrollment. District 622 s public and nonpublic school enrollment as of December 1, 2006 was 14,817, and the number of students receiving special education on this date was 1,732. The special education percentage of total enrollment in Minnesota public schools for 2006 is District 622 special education percentage is 12% for 2006, which is less than the state average. 8

12 The grid s bottom portion summarizes students by age groups, 0-2 years old, 3-5 years old, 6-11 years old, years old, years old, and finally the total 0-21 special education child count. Students with disabilities in nonpublic schools located within the district s boundaries are served by District 622 to a certain extent. The district is required to identify and serve students in nonpublic schools with a portion of the federal special education funds they receive. The report from MDE on page 11 shows the number of students with disabilities served in nonpublic and charter schools for The amount of federal funds allocated from District 622 to be used for special education services for these students is $ per student ages 3-21 and $ for students ages

13 10

14 11

15 Overview of Special Education Funding In 1976, federal lawmakers passed the landmark special education legislation, PL , Education of Handicapped Children Act. This law promised to pay up to 40 percent of the excess cost for special education. However, the federal government has never paid more than 17.5 percent of special education excess cost, which results in the state and local districts paying for a greater share of the costs of special education. State special education aid reimbursement The State has agreed to pay 68 percent of the salary (excluding benefits) of special education staff, 52 percent of contracted services and 47 percent of related supplies, materials, and equipment. Starting in 2007, special education state aid reimbursement calculations are based on current year data instead of 2 nd year prior base year data. The State has not paid 100% of the aid that is expected. The estimate for 2008 is that the state special education aid will be 88.3% of the aid promised, which is less than the state special education aid reimbursement expected. State Excess Cost formula Excess cost state aid is generated when special education costs rise significantly above the base year. For example, a medically fragile child may enter the school district, and costs rise dramatically to care for that child. This sudden, unexpected budget pressure is relieved because this excess-cost formula kicks in. However, the State is only paying a portion of these costs. In other words, for 2008 it is estimated that districts will receive $81.40 for every $100 promised on this formula. In most districts in Minnesota, the number of special education students is growing while the general student population is flat or declining. This is the case for District 622. The special education enrollment growth is compounded by the increased severity of the disabilities and the rising costs of their services. Meanwhile, state special education funding is flat. In 2003, a cap was placed on the State s contribution to special education. The result of the cap was that the State limited the amount of money that it would reimburse school district for special education costs. The net result was that districts thought they were due $10 to cover the cost of a special education student, but only received $6. Since 2003, this practice has continued, and the result has been that districts have taken money from their general fund to pay for special education costs. Without the special education program growth factors in place for the last four years, the inflationary costs of these programs went unchecked. The Minnesota Department of Education estimates that special education costs are rising at a 4% increase per year. Special education is under funded. The shortfall means districts subsidize special education costs on an average of $467/pupil out of the district s general fund. This crosssubsidy puts much pressure on the school district general education budget. In past years the legislature funded the basic formula allowance, but froze the special education funding in the process. This leads the public to believe schools have received new revenue when, in fact, the shortfall in special education amounts to no real new dollars for school districts. 12

16 The federal special education funds have additional strings attached for their use. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that federal funds may not be used to reduce the level of expenditures for the education of children with disabilities made by the local education agency (LEA) from (state and) local funds below the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal year (34 C.F.R. SS ). This requirement is referred to as maintenance of effort (MOE). For those Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that have not maintained effort, the Minnesota Department of Education will compare total local expenditures or on a per-capita amount and will review the LEAs local expenditures minus the state revenue to determine if the district s local expenditures increased or decreased from the previous year. If the LEA local expenditures did not decrease, then the LEA has maintained effort. LEAs that failed to maintain effort from FY 2005 to FY 2006 will forfeit General Education Revenue in 2007 equal to the amount that they fell short in FY 2006 (Minnesota Statute 126C.21, Subdivision 5). The report from MDE on page 14 shows the Maintenance of Effort calculation for District 622 from to The bottom number shows the district local average did not decrease from ($4,309.73) compared to ($4,089.17). This means the district met the maintenance of effort requirement for In summary, special education costs continue to rise as state and federal funding for special education does not. Because of the pressure on the school district budget from rising special education costs, shortfall in state and federal aid, declining total enrollment, and increasing special education child count, it is critically important for the district to evaluate, monitor, and assess special education programs and practices on a routine basis. 13

17 14

18 Special Education Program Standards The following pages compare District 622 information with standards for effective special education programs. There are nine standards listed for quality special education programs. Each standard is followed by current best practices in the field of special education and in Minnesota. Then, District 622 findings are summarized in the categories of strengths and weaknesses found during this program evaluation. Standards/Best Practices: 1. Quality special education programs provide the staff and the facility resources necessary for program success. 1.1 There are sufficient numbers of special and general education teachers and related service personnel employed to maintain effective teacherstudent ratios. Each district must have in effect and on file policies, procedures, and programs that are consistent with the state policies and procedures that provide for measurable steps to recruit, hire, train, and retain highly qualified personnel to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities. These policies and procedures must be included in the district s comprehensive Total Special Education System (TSES) plan. A highly qualified teacher is one holding a valid Minnesota license to perform the particular service for which the teacher is employed in a public school. All Minnesota teachers teaching in a core academic subject area in which they are not fully licensed may complete the HOUSSE process in the core subject area to meet the highly qualified status. The federal No Child Left Behind Act defines this process. For students who receive direct special education less than 50 percent of the instructional day, teacher case loads (number of students that teachers case manage), are to be determined by the local district s policy based on the amount of time and services required by the pupils IEP plans. The state has indicated caseload limits for teachers who serve students who receive special education services more than 50% and up to 100% of the instructional day. Minnesota rule currently states: (1) For students who receive direct special education more than 50% or more of the instructional day, but less than a full day, special education case loads for teachers must follow these rules: (a) Deaf-blind, autism spectrum disorders, developmental cognitive disability: severe-profound range, or severely multiply impaired, three pupils; (b) Deaf-blind, autism spectrum disorders, developmental cognitive disability: severe-profound range, or severely multiply impaired with one program support assistant, six pupils; (c) Developmental cognitive disability: mild-moderate range or specific learning disabled, 12 pupils; 15

19 (d) Developmental cognitive disability: mild-moderate range or specific learning disabled with one program support assistant, 15 pupils; (e) All other disabilities with one program support assistant, ten pupils; and (f) All other disabilities with two program support assistants, 12 pupils; For students who receive direct special education for a full day, teachers caseloads must follow Minnesota Rule: (2) For pupils who receive direct special education for a full day: (a) Deaf-blind, autism spectrum disorders, developmental cognitive disability: severe-profound range, or severely multiply impaired with one program support assistant, four pupils; (b) Deaf-blind, autism spectrum disorders, developmental cognitive disability: severe-profound range, or severely multiply impaired with two program support assistants, six pupils; and (c) All other disabilities with one program support assistant, eight pupils. Minnesota s Workload Consideration for Effective Special Education Manual outlines six elements that comprise most of the workloads of special education teachers. These six elements include specially designed instruction, evaluations and reevaluations, due process procedures and Individualized Education Plan (IEP) manager responsibilities, preparation time, directing the work of paraprofessionals, and other assignments for supervision of students. These duties for special education teachers are in addition to direct instruction with students with disabilities. 1.2 There are sufficient numbers of instructional supports and materials available to assist students with disabilities in both general and special education locations. Instructional materials and any special equipment necessary to meet the needs of students with disabilities must be supplied to provide appropriate instruction, related services, and supplementary aids and services. Instructional supports include educational paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals are district employees who are primarily engaged in direct interaction with one or more students for instructional activities, physical or behavior management, or other purposes under the direction of a regular education or special education teacher or related services provider. For paraprofessionals employed to work in programs for students with disabilities, the school board in each district shall ensure that before or immediately upon employment, each paraprofessional develops sufficient knowledge and skills in emergency procedures, building orientation, roles and responsibilities, confidentiality, vulnerability, and reportability, among other things, to begin meeting the needs of the students with whom the paraprofessional works. 16

20 Annual training opportunities must be available to enable the paraprofessional to continue to further develop the knowledge and skills that are specific to the students with whom the paraprofessional works, including understanding disabilities, following lesson plans, and implementing follow-up instructional procedures and activities. There must be a district wide process for each paraprofessional to work under the ongoing direction of a licensed teacher and, where appropriate and possible, the supervision of a school nurse. 1.3 Special education classrooms and service areas are located centrally within the school building and the general education environment. Classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services, and supplementary aids and services must be essentially equivalent to the regular education program. Classroom and facilities for students with disabilities must provide an atmosphere that is conducive to learning, and must meet the students special physical, sensory, and emotional needs. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): Staff are observed and reported to be skilled, devoted, hardworking, professional, responsive, caring, and knowledgeable. There are sufficient numbers of special education teachers and related service personnel employed to maintain effective teacher-student ratios. See page 20 for building specific information. Most District 622 school buildings have appropriate space for special education which is centrally located, quiet, and conducive to teaching and learning. Exceptions are noted below and include North High School, Beaver Lake and Weaver Elementary. Weakness(es): The basis of inclusion is programming for students with disabilities in regular education classrooms. In District 622 there is a commonly held belief from both regular and special education teachers and some administrators that students with disabilities cannot be included in general education classrooms without paraprofessional support. This limiting belief hinders collaboration between regular and special education teachers and is an artificial barrier to inclusion for students with disabilities. When staff do not consider inclusion, and pre-referral classroom interventions are not developed and carried out, this results in more students being referred for special education services. Survey results and staff interviews indicate that regular and special education teachers and some administrators do not feel that there is an adequate staff-student 17

21 ratio to implement a successful and collaborative special education program. There are sufficient numbers of special education teachers in District 622; however, the class sizes for general education are high because of current education funding and district budget reductions. The large number of students in regular education classrooms makes successful inclusion practices challenging. Given this increasing class size trend, it is common for classroom teachers to not implement essential student adaptations as indicated in the students IEPs due to the time it takes to implement them. It is an important goal for the district to serve resident students in the district programs and buildings as much as possible. This is an area of concern for District 622. District 622 has too many students served in Federal Setting 4. Federal Setting 4 is when students with disabilities are served in separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements. These students are not attending school in the District 622 regular school buildings and programs. The Minnesota average for is 4.74% of students with disabilities were served in Federal Setting 4. The District 622 average for is 10.3% of the students were served in Federal Setting 4. This is more than double the state average. The State goal for is 5% of students with disabilities served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements, which is Federal Setting 4. There has been an effort over the past few years to bring students who have been served in other placements and separate schools back into District 622 buildings and programs. That effort needs to continue and receive increased emphasis in order to meet the state average and expected levels. A frequently cited staff concern is the lack of understanding regarding the appropriation process for the special education budget in order for staff to access classroom materials, curriculum, and equipment. Some teachers report that they are not able to purchase curriculum and materials this school year for their special education classrooms, and teachers are not sure why and how changes have been made in the purchasing materials process. Some buildings have inadequate instructional spaces as perceived by staff in specific buildings: North High School has one hallway that is mainly special education classrooms and is separated from general education classrooms. The special education classrooms are not centrally located and are not regarded as adequate space for special education programs. Beaver Lake building is reported by staff to have serious indoor environmental concerns. Weaver Elementary is reported by staff to have too small special education classrooms with poor air quality and located near noisy areas of the building. 18

22 Unduplicated Special Education Teacher Average Caseload In order to determine the number of students for whom each special education teacher is a case manager, information was collected for each special education teacher in each building. The following chart shows the average students to special education teacher ratio by building. Related service providers, such as educational speech language pathologists and social workers, are not included in this information as it focuses on special education teachers. It is noted that speech language pathologists are case managers at some elementary buildings, and those students are not included in this summary chart. The number of students with disabilities for whom a teacher is case manager range from 5 to 22 students per special education teacher of Learning Disabilities (LD), Emotional Behavior Disorders (EBD), Other Health Disabilities (OHD), and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) -- LD/EBD/OHD/ASD. The ratios range from 6 to 12 students per Development Cognitive Disabilities (DCD) teacher and teachers designated as case manger for students in a Functional Academic Needs (FAN) program. The FAN program is newly implemented in District 622 for the school year. For the high schools, the average case manager ratio for LD/EBD/OHD/ASD is 16.2 students per special education case manager; for the middle schools, the average ratio is 13.8 students; and for the elementary schools, the average is 14.6 students per case manager. These ratios indicate that there are sufficient numbers of special education teachers employed to maintain effective teacher-student ratios for special education services. It is preferable in a district to distribute student caseloads evenly for special education teachers as much as possible within each building and across the district. This may require reassignment or adjustments of special education staff from year to year as student enrollment changes It is common that special education teachers for students with developmental cognitive disabilities (DCD) have fewer students per teacher than teachers of LD/EBD/OHD/ASD. This is because students with DCD often receive more special education minutes per day due to their greater needs than students with milder disabilities. The chart below indicates each building, the number of full time equivalent (FTE) special education teachers per building, the number of students with disabilities served by LD, EBD, and DCD teachers, and the number of special education paraprofessionals. This is a snapshot of the information from October 2007, and is frequently changing throughout the school year. It does not include the students who are case managed by educational speech language pathologists, except for Beaver Lake, and other service providers such as occupational therapists, school nurses and social workers. The purpose to include this information is to determine if there are sufficient numbers of special education staff employed for effective teacher-student ratios, and if the student teacher ratios are comparable from building to building. 19

23 School Building Disability Special Education Students/Special Education Teachers Average Student to Teacher Ratio Special Education Paraprofessionals North High School LD/OHD/EBD/ASD DCD 160 / 10 FTE 25/2 FTE 9 Tartan High School LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 164 / 10 FTE DCD 12/1 10 John Glenn Middle LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 79 / 6 FTE School DCD 7/1 9 Maplewood Middle LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 72/ 5 FTE School DCD 16/2 8 Skyview Middle School LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 83/ 6 FTE Carver Elementary LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 48 / 3FTE 16 DCD 8/1 8 4 Castle Elementary LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 37/ 3 FTE Cowern Elementary LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 21 / 1 FTE 21 DCD 6/1 6 8 Eagle Point LD/OHD/EBD/ASD Elementary 43 / 4 FTE 11 6 Oakdale Elementary LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 33 / 2 FTE 16.5 DCD 12/2 6 7 Richardson LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 36 / 2 FTE 18 Elementary DCD 10/ Skyview Elementary LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 24/ 3 FTE 8 DCD 10/ Weaver Elementary LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 30 / 3 FTE 10 7 Webster Elementary LD/OHD/EBD/ASD 40/ 2 FTE 20 8 DCD 7/1 FTE 7 Beaver Lake ECSE and speech 96 / 12 FTE 8 14 EBD and Transition 66/ 6 FTE 11 Gladstone ECSE/ASD 28 / 5 FTE Quality special education programs involve all personnel who work with students with disabilities in appropriate training to strengthen their ability to provide effective services. 2.1 All personnel who work with students with disabilities attend relevant training sessions during the school year. Personnel development is a structure for personnel planning and focuses on pre-service and in-service needs in order to plan a program to meet the needs of pupils with disabilities. Districts must develop staff development activities that include all personnel who work with students with disabilities. 20

24 Staff development activities may include curriculum development and curriculum training programs, and activities that provide teachers, paraprofessionals, and other members of teams training to enhance team performance. The school district may implement other staff development activities required by law and activities associated with professional teacher compensation models. 2.2 The topics offered for training sessions are identified on the basis of the building or district s needs. The district must conduct an assessment of local needs when determining staff development needs. Regular and special education staff need to have regular opportunities to assess their individual, building, and district training needs. A needs assessment must be conducted with the involvement of teachers, including teachers participating in special education programs. The needs assessment must take into account the activities that need to be conducted in order to give teachers the means, including subject matter knowledge and teaching skills, to provide students with the opportunity to meet challenging state and local student academic achievement standards. The assessment must also include components to give principals the instructional leadership skills to help teachers. To be eligible to receive Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) money under the federal law, school districts need to conduct an assessment of local needs for professional development. The purpose of a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development is to provide staff development at both the pre-service and inservice level that is focused on maximizing the benefit to students with disabilities in need of specialized instruction. 2.3 Teachers are prepared to address the learning needs of students and to select strategies to improve academic achievement. Staff development activities: (1) Focus on the school classroom and research-based strategies that improve student learning; (2) Provide opportunities for teachers to practice and improve their instructional skills over time; (3) Provide opportunities for teachers to use student data as part of their daily work to increase student achievement; (4) Enhance teacher content knowledge and instructional skills; (5) Align with state and local academic standards; (6) Provide opportunities to build professional relationships, foster collaboration among principals and staff who provide instruction, and provide opportunities for teacher-to-teacher mentoring. 21

25 2.4 Special education staff are included with regular education staff for training with new and existing curriculum writing, planning, and delivery. Special education staff are included with regular education staff for activities involving curriculum review, writing, and planning. The current plan for curriculum review and planning must be on file in the administrative offices of the district and with the State Commissioner of Education. The district must submit status reports on implementing the plan as requested by the Commissioner of Education. The current plan must be reviewed at least every six years and be revised as necessary. Minnesota Rule includes the provision for each school board in each district to adopt a written plan to assure that the curriculum developed for use in district schools establishes and maintains an inclusive educational program. An inclusive educational program is one that employs a curriculum that is developed and delivered so that students and staff gain an understanding and appreciation of: 1. The cultural diversity of the United States. Special emphasis must be placed on American Indians/Alaskan natives, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, Black Americans, and Hispanic Americans. The program must reflect the wide range of contributions by and roles open to Americans of all races and cultures. 2. The historical and contemporary contributions of women and men to society. Special emphasis must be placed on the contributions of women. The program must reflect the wide range of contributions by and roles open to American women and men. 3. The historical and contemporary contributions to society by persons with disabilities. The program must reflect the wide range of contributions by and roles open to Americans with disabilities. The school district may implement other staff development activities required by law and activities associated with professional teacher compensation models. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): Weakness(es): Special education teachers are included on district and building staff development teams. It is important for general education and special education staff to plan for common training to enhance the opportunities for collaboration for better outcomes for students with disabilities. Special education staff including special education paraprofessionals report a need to provide disability-specific trainings for special education paraprofessionals. This need was identified through staff interviews and 22

26 special education staff survey results. Special education teachers also voiced concern with the lack of disability specific trainings on scheduled staff development days. Teachers, both regular and special education, indicated the need for both groups to be included in common staff development training in the district which has not been the common practice. There is a need for training opportunities for administrators, special and general education teachers about inclusion (special education students receiving their individualized education program services in the regular education classroom) and providing accommodations for students with disabilities. Surveys indicate that staff do not believe that there are adequate instructional supports and materials for students in the regular classroom. There is a wide range of willingness, confidence, and ability levels of regular education teachers for the implementation of modifications for students with disabilities in their classrooms. Not all teachers indicate a willingness to make adjustments for students with disabilities. Building administrators need lead staff concerning the importance of required special education adaptations and how essential it is to collaborate with special education staff for increased inclusion for students with disabilities in District 622. Staff are not able to identify a needs assessment tool used to determine training needs for district staff development. A needs assessment can assist with planning and prioritizing staff development needs for regular and special education teachers, related service staff, and special education paraprofessionals. 3. The range and variety of instructional materials, supplies, and equipment for the special education programs are sufficient to meet the needs of students. 3.1 Materials, equipment, and supplies appropriate to a variety of learning styles and learner characteristics are available in special and general education classrooms. Teachers and staff are aware of specific budgets for special education instructional materials and supplies. The district has developed procedures and a process for purchasing materials and supplies. Student learning styles and characteristics are considered when materials are purchased. The district s curriculum review process ensures that the needs of students with disabilities are considered in decisions regarding adoption or purchase of curricular materials. District adopted curricular materials are accessible to all students (universally designed). Building principals work with the special education leaders to advocate for sufficient resources that support high-quality instruction of students with disabilities in the common core of learning. 23

27 3.2 The materials, supplies, and equipment in the special education program are adequate, current, and in good condition. The district has procedures in place to provide curriculum for all students, including students with disabilities. Technology is updated and available to special education students and teachers. Educational software is utilized in the special education programs. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): Weakness(es): CAMPUS software is provided for special education paperwork. The CAMPUS program is a student data system that tracks student information. Address, phone number, guardian contact information, student schedule, grades, and special education status are the basics of this system. Special education staff use CAMPUS for paperwork requirements necessary to be in compliance with state and federal guidelines when serving a student with a disability. Forms are available on CAMPUS that align with special education due process requirements. Even though there could be improvements with CAMPUS, special education teachers need and have a special education due process and IEP software program provided with CAMPUS. As federal and state regulations change and/or are updated, required special education forms also need to be updated. These updates are not always timely which results in frustration for staff. In addition, when changes to CAMPUS do occur, staff report that regular updates are not communicated to them. There is a lack of information provided and a process defined regarding purchasing for special education. The process for requesting materials and curriculum is not consistent from year to year or from building to building and has not been communicated to special education teachers and building administrators. Many teachers and administrators indicated frustration with the ordering and approval process. The process for technology requests is not clearly understood by teachers who report waiting a week or longer for help when there are problems with classroom computers and printers. Waits and delays are variable from building to building which may indicate problems with the process or allocation of technology support in the district. Many teachers and administrators reported that as new special education programs are implemented, such as Functional Academic Needs (FAN), they are not aware of any provision for necessary supplies, materials, and equipment. Many staff reported that the process used to add the FAN 24

28 program was not adequate. They did not understand the reason for the change, the process, and the implementation, which is still causing confusion, frustration, and questions. 4. Quality special education programs meet state and federal compliance standards to identify students with disabilities and to provide special education services. 4.1 All state and federal regulations and guidelines pertaining to special education pre-referral, referral, evaluation, and placement are carried out effectively, efficiently, and in a timely manner. The Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) provides a vehicle for Minnesota Department of Education oversight of due process and procedural safeguards, conferred educational benefit for special education students, as well as the provision of Free and Appropriate Public Education. Minnesota Department of Education has the authority to ensure that each district demonstrates general compliance and continuous improvement in the implementation of the full provisions of the federal law, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Each district is monitored for compliance under one of two options: Traditional Review (TR) or Self-Review (SR). Traditional Review identifies a district s compliance status during a state monitoring visit and follow-up visit. Self-Review brings compliance and special education program evaluation into a single strategic plan to improve due process compliance and program results for students with disabilities. In order to participate in Self-Review, a district must maintain general due process compliance. Once considered to be in general compliance, a district may self-select to join SR. Both Traditional Review and Self-Review include a site visit from the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) staff when records are reviewed, staff interviewed, facilities visited and stakeholder information collected. After the monitoring visit, the district is provided data regarding students not eligible for special education. The district is given the opportunity to provide information that existed at the time of the monitoring visit but was not available. The district is given an opportunity to refute any of the preliminary findings of non-compliance. All findings of noncompliance by the Minnesota Department of Education must be corrected by the district within one year of notification. 4.2 Adequate consultative services are available for general education teachers during pre-referral interventions. Minnesota statute requires that before a student is referred for a special education assessment, the district must conduct and document at least two instructional strategies, 25

29 alternatives, or interventions while the student is in the regular classroom. The student s teacher must provide the documentation of the effectiveness of the interventions. General education teachers need to have access to consultation services for designing interventions. Consultation services for designing interventions are provided by a team. The team includes special education teachers, school psychologists, school social workers, and general education teachers. A systematic problem-solving model is used, along with documentation of student response to targeted interventions. Pre-referral teams are available to consult with regular classroom teachers on a scheduled basis. Flexibility and common planning times are included in staff schedules to insure access to pre-referral consultation services. 4.3 School personnel actively encourage parent participation and effectively communicate program goals and options to parents. School districts develop a district philosophy for special education programs and practices within the district. A plan for continuous program improvement is developed and reviewed on a regular basis. Parent participation and involvement are actively encouraged. School staff are aware of special education programs within the district. School districts must have procedures in place to ensure that the parents of each disabled student are members of any group that makes decisions for the educational placement of the student. Parents of students with disabilities have a right to be involved in the educational decision-making process by participating or being afforded the opportunity to participate at each IEP meeting to develop, review, or revise the IEP. At the time of contact, the district must inform the parents of their right to bring anyone of their choosing to accompany them to the meeting. School districts must identify and develop procedures for conflict resolution when disagreements occur between the district and parents. 4.4 Identification, placement, and grouping practices are determined by the needs of the students with disabilities. All students with disabilities are provided with evaluation and special instruction services that are appropriate to their individual needs. The student's needs and the special education instruction and services to be provided must be agreed upon through the development of an Individual Education Plan (IEP). The IEP team determines appropriate goals and objectives based on the student's needs. The IEP team determines the extent to which the student can be included in the regular education classroom. Effective instruction, related services, or assistive technology devices are available to meet the student's needs. 26

30 The plan must address the student's need to develop skills to live and work as independently as possible within the community. The Individual Education Plan (IEP) team must consider positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports that address each student s needs. By grade 9 or age 14, the plan must address the student's needs for transition from secondary services to postsecondary education and training, employment, community participation, recreation and leisure, and home living. In developing the plan, districts must inform parents of the full range of transitional goals and related services that should be considered. The plan must include a statement of the needed transition services, including a statement of the interagency responsibilities or linkages or both before secondary services are concluded. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): District 622 participates in an annual Self-Review of specific special education data through the Minnesota Continuous Improvement Process (MNCIMP). This process identifies areas of high, medium, and low priority for special education needs in the district. MNCIMP plans are posted on the District 622 website and available for review. TAT (Teacher Assistant Team) and Pupil Needs Committee (PNC) teams are organized in some buildings. These teams are responsible to develop classroom interventions for student behavior and/or learning before a special education referral is initiated. Some building teams have additional duties to monitor special education due process for students receiving special education services. District 622 has had few formal disputes with parents over the past years. Since 1998, there have been only four formal complaints made from parents to the Minnesota Department of Education in regard to Special Education service provision by the district. This indicates that the district staff work hard to resolve disputes with parents at the local level. District 622 has a wide range of related services personnel employed including school social workers, school psychologists, and school nurses. These highly trained staff can be an integral part of planning and evaluating interventions for students who are not making adequate progress. Weakness(es): There is no district philosophy known or identified by staff for special education programs and practices within the district. There are significant differences from building to building in the provision of special education services. There is a sense in the district that special education teachers have their own individual programs without guidance, oversight, support and accountability from administration. There is an inequitable distribution of special education programs among school buildings and communities. Each building should have a continuum of special 27

31 education services, from the least restrictive to the most restrictive placement, to meet the needs of their students with special needs. The district plan should include serving students in the school that they would attend if they were not disabled. Students with disabilities in District 622 are not participating in the general education curriculum with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible. Students with disabilities ages 3-5 are not served in the least restrictive environments (LRE) with their typically developing peers at the rate expected by the state. The state average for children with disabilities ages 3-5 served in environments with same aged peers without disabilities is 50.5%. The District 622 rate is 37.7%. This means too many students ages 3-5 are served in settings that do not include children without disabilities. The state goal for is that 60% of preschool children with disabilities are served in settings that include children without disabilities. Students of school age are not served in special and regular education classrooms an appropriate amount of time each day when compared to state averages. Special education in Federal Setting 1 is when a student is served in a special education setting up to 21% of the school day, and the rest of the time is in the general education classroom. The average in Minnesota for Federal Setting 1 is 60.4% of special education students. The average in District 622 is 49.5%% of students served in Federal setting 1. This means too many students in District 622 are not in the regular classroom enough time during the school day and are served in a special education location over 21% of the time. The goal is to have students in Federal Setting 1 for special education to the greatest degree to participate with students without disabilities the majority of time. The state goal for is 61.5% of students with disabilities in Setting 1. Staff survey results (Question 8 on page 54) and staff interview comments show that collaboration between regular and special education is a weak area. Both special education and regular education teachers report that they do not know enough about the student s regular education program and IEP contents. The goal is that regular and special education teachers know and understand both regular and special education programming for the student. 5. Quality programs for students with disabilities maximize students participation in the general curriculum with non-disabled peers. 5.1 Special education programming includes a full array of service delivery options with the goal of inclusion in the general education curriculum and setting. 28

32 School districts must ensure that a continuum of placements is available to meet the needs of pupils for special education and related services. A full array of service delivery options includes instruction in regular classes, in special classes, in special schools, home instruction, and instruction in schools and hospitals. School districts must make provisions for supplementary services, including resource room or itinerant instruction, to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement. The primary focus of programming is the general education curriculum and setting when appropriate. 5.2 School personnel make every effort to serve students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. School districts determine a philosophy for the provision of special education services. The general education setting is presumed to be the least restrictive setting for students with disabilities. Individual Education Plan (IEP) teams determine the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with students in the regular education setting. To the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities must be educated with students who do not have disabilities and must attend regular classes. A student with a disability shall be removed from a regular educational program only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in a regular educational program with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be accomplished satisfactorily. Furthermore, there must be an indication that the student will be better served outside of the regular classroom. 5.3 General and special education staff collaborate to enhance student learning. General and special education staff are trained in effective collaboration techniques. Students learning styles and needs are identified. Teachers schedules include common planning time for collaborative efforts with other staff to meet the unique learning needs of all students. Inclusion of students with disabilities into the regular classrooms has brought about teams of general and special education teachers working collaboratively to combine their professional knowledge, perspectives, and skills. Regular and special education teachers share goals, decisions, classroom instruction, and responsibility for students. Planning for effective collaboration takes place at the district, building, and classroom levels. In addition, education and training for collaborative skills, teaching techniques, content subject areas, knowledge of disabilities, individualization, and accommodation should be incorporated into all teacher preparation and professional development activities. 29

33 5.4 General and special education staff share responsibility for the educational achievement of students with disabilities. IEP teams determine how the student will participate in general and special education settings. The IEP includes information about the team s decisions for how the educational achievement for each student will be determined. General and special education staff roles and responsibilities are outlined in the IEP. Both general and special education staff have shared responsibilities for student achievement. The primary responsibility for general education teachers is to instruct students in curricula determined by the school system. The primary responsibility for special education teachers is to provide instruction by adapting and developing materials to match the learning styles, strengths, and special needs of each of their students. 5.5 Students with disabilities have opportunities to participate in all school programs. School districts have policies that include all students participation and involvement in all school programs. IEP teams determine appropriate accommodations or modifications that support students with disabilities in their participation in school programs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that supplemental services and assistive technology be provided when necessary to students who receive special education services. While the benefits of such supports can be used to meet the academic needs of students with disabilities, supplemental services can also contribute to the social needs of students in activities outside the regular school day. 5.6 Students with disabilities have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including special transportation if required. School districts must establish procedures for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities for all students in the district, including students with disabilities. Nonacademic activities including lunch, recess, and other school programs must be accessible to all students. Students with disabilities may require special transportation as a related service to participate in their educational program. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): Over the past three years, District 622 is decreasing the number of students who are served in out of district placements and separate schools. There has been an effort to return resident students to the school building that they would attend if they were not disabled. This is very important to continue bringing resident students into District 622 programs, buildings, and regular classrooms. 30

34 Weakness(es): Inclusion opportunities vary from building to building within the school district. It is important to note that students with disabilities are general education students first. They are to receive special education support services in conjunction with the general education curriculum. The district must focus on inclusion for students with disabilities at every building in the district. Data shows that students with disabilities in District 622 are not being served in the least restrictive environment (LRE) when compared with other districts and with the state goals and averages. The state average is 50.5% of students with disabilities ages 3-5 are served in environments with same aged peers without disabilities. The District 622 rate is 37.7%. This means too many students ages 3-5 are served in settings that do not include children without disabilities. For school aged students, the average in Minnesota in for students with disabilities served in Federal setting 1 (up to 21% of the time in special education) is 60.4%. District 622 in had 49.5%% of students served in Federal setting 1. This means too many students in District 622 are not in the regular classroom enough time during the school day. In addition, students from District 622 are served in separate schools, residential placements, and homebound or hospital placements at a rate more than twice the state average. District leadership must develop goals for LRE for students in the district to be comparable to the state goals for percentage of students in each federal special education setting. Implementation at the building level with administrative leadership is essential to reach these district goals. To summarize, District 622 has too many students with disabilities served in special education settings for too many minutes of each day and not enough students with disabilities served in regular education settings. Overall, staff do not report a sense of shared responsibility between general education and special education for students with disabilities. Many teachers and administrators in the district do not believe that educating special education students is a shared responsibility. Comments such as, I feel as though special education functions totally independent from the regular classroom, were commonly said by both regular and special education teachers and administrators. There is conflict for special education teachers between providing support to students with disabilities in the mainstream curriculum and providing these students specially designed instruction based on the student s IEP. Tutoring students through mainstream classes appears to be a widely used special education resource room practice in District 622. However, special education services are to include teaching skills and strategies for students to be successful in the general education classes. If special education teachers use their time as tutors, students do not learn skills and strategies to become successful in the general education class. 31

35 Based on the current special education service delivery model, the high class size of the regular education classrooms can diminish the mainstream opportunities for success with students with disabilities. Large regular education class sizes can cause special education models for learning disability (LD) and emotional/behavior disordered (EBD) special education to switch to more restrictive teaching/support models, such as LD Math. This does not provide for specially designed instruction through special education for students with disabilities. Special education personnel are then content-specific teachers rather than IEP driven teachers/facilitators. 6. Effective special education programs are well coordinated, evaluated, and monitored. 6.1 IEP team members regularly and systematically monitor student progress for each student with a disability. The district must ensure that the IEP team reviews the student s IEP periodically, and not less than annually to determine whether the annual goals for the student are being achieved. The IEP is reviewed as appropriate to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals. The IEP team also reviews the student s progress in the general curriculum. The IEP review will include parent information about the student. 6.2 School-based services are coordinated with other agencies and community services. In 1998, the Interagency Services for Children with Disabilities Act was passed in Minnesota. This state legislation supports the development and implementation of a coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency intervention service system for children and youth with disabilities, ages birth to 21. The legislation is a response to the multiple, parallel, and often unconnected, service delivery systems that can exist without an interagency coordinated system. As a result of this legislation, school-based services must be coordinated with other agencies and community services to make it easier for families and children. Minnesota state law requires an interagency intervention service system; a system to provide coordination, collaboration, and cooperation among all partners providing service to children, youth, and families must be developed and available. School and county boards must ensure that governance agreements are established, partnerships with county agencies within its boundaries exist, and services are provided to children with disabilities. 32

36 6.3 Communication and progress reporting is ongoing between school and parents. Progress reporting is ongoing between the school and the parents. For students with disabilities, the IEP team determines the frequency and the methods for progress reporting to parents for each student. Progress reporting includes a statement of how the student s progress toward the annual goals described in the IEP will be measured. In addition, the IEP states how the student s parents will be regularly informed, such as periodic report cards, at least as often as parents are informed of a non-disabled student's progress. The IEP team reviews the entire IEP at least annually. The team determines the student s progress toward the annual goals described in the IEP, and the extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable the student to achieve the goals by the end of the year. 6.4 Outcomes addressing the academic, transition, and functional elements of the special education program are routinely evaluated. Minnesota must have on file established goals for the performance of students with disabilities in the state that are consistent with other goals and standards for all students in Minnesota. Minnesota has a plan for performance indicators that the state uses to assess progress toward achieving those goals. At a minimum, the performance indicators must address the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments, dropout rates, and graduation rates. Each school district must have procedures in place to review the Minnesota state performance plan indicators. This data is included in the district s Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Plan (MNCIMP). 6.5 Program resources are routinely evaluated. School districts have procedures in place to evaluate curriculum, materials, and programs. Special education staff and programs are included in these evaluation procedures. The Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System (MARSS) is a single data collection program that collects student data required by more than one area of the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE). Data collected by MARSS is used for a variety of purposes, including state aid and levy calculations, federal grant allocations, federal and state civil rights reporting, unduplicated child count, and National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) reports. Minnesota school districts, charter schools, cooperative districts, area learning centers, private alternative schools and nonpublic schools are required by law to prepare financial reports and annual budgets. The Uniform Financial Accounting and Reporting System (UFARS) is an integral part of the accounting and reporting process for all school districts. 33

37 Tuition billing occurs when a district other than the resident district (where a parent resides) provides education to a special education student. The school district serving the student is responsible for providing the services. The school district where the student s parents reside is responsible for paying for the excess costs of providing those services. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) Division of Program Finance collects the data on students who are receiving special education services in a district other than their resident district. The amount and type of special education services are used to determine the rate of the tuition bill. The amount owed to a district as well as the amount a district owes to another district is calculated by MDE. MDE then adjusts each district s special education aide entitlement to reflect the nonresident students the district serves as well as the resident students served by another district. Information specific to District 622 tuition billing entitlements and adjustments is available on the MDE website, under Program Finance, Minnesota Funding Reports (MFR) System. These reports represent public data and student identifiable information is not present. Examples of District 622 data follow on pages Page 35 details costs for District 622 resident students served by other districts/cooperatives. The total tuition expenditure for District 622 students served in other districts/cooperatives in was $2,256, Page 36 details the revenues for serving non-resident students in District 622 with a total revenue of $409, The revenue less expenditures is a negative $1,847, This means that there is much more money leaving the district with students being served elsewhere than coming into the district for nonresident students. It is necessary for District 622 to focus on keeping and serving as many resident students as possible within the district programs and buildings and not sending resident students to other districts for services. This is an important goal for every school district and takes focus, commitment, and monitoring to keep students in the district as much as possible. 34

38 35

39 36

40 There are a number of school board policies that are mandatory and are necessary to meet the requirements of state or federal law. State and federal agencies look for the mandatory school board policies during accreditation visits, financial audits, investigations, and as contingencies prior to the release of funds. Such policies that impact special education include: Equal Educational Opportunity (Inclusive Education) Disability Nondiscrimination Policy Harassment & Violence &Religious, Racial or Sexual Harassment and Violence School Weapons Policy Search of Student Lockers, Desks, Personal Possessions and Student s Person Bullying Prohibition Policy Protection and Privacy of Pupil; Records & Public Notice & Juvenile Justice System Request for Information Student Disability Nondiscrimination Student Sex Nondiscrimination (Title X) & Unlawful Sex Discrimination Towards a Student Internet Acceptable Use Policy & Internet Use Agreement Hazing Prohibition Use of Peace Officers and Crisis Teams to Remove Students with IEPs from School Grounds Wellness In addition to the mandatory policies, these school board policies concern students with disabilities: Do Not Resuscitate or Intubate Special Education Discipline Procedures Special Education Removal of Student with IEP Special Education Testing Accommodations Special Education Transportation 6.6 Program processes such as identification, referral, placement, exiting procedures, instructional methods, and curriculum content are routinely evaluated. The Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP) provides the vehicle for Minnesota Department of Education oversight of due process and procedural safeguards, conferred benefit for special education students, as well as the provision of federally required Free and Appropriate Public Education. The Minnesota Department of Education has the authority to ensure that each district demonstrates general compliance and continuous improvement in the implementation of the full provisions of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 37

41 Each district is monitored for compliance under one of two continuous improvement options: Traditional Review (TR) or Self-Review (SR). Traditional Review identifies a district s compliance status during a monitoring visit and follow-up visit. Self-Review brings compliance and special education program evaluation into a single strategic plan to improve due process compliance and program results for students with disabilities. School districts must identify which continuous improvement option meets their needs for participation. A comprehensive MNCIMP plan is developed and submitted to the Minnesota Department of Education annually. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): Each year, District 622 participates in the Minnesota Continuous Improvement Process (MNCIMP), which is a self review process of data collection focused on special education continuous improvement action plans. This annual report is available on the district s website. Special education caseloads are within state guidelines. Budget reductions over the past years have resulted in higher special education caseloads. These caseloads, however, continue to be within state guidelines. There are sufficient numbers of special education and related services staff for the special education child count. Weakness(es): Overall, special education teachers feel that their caseloads are too high. See page 20 for caseload averages per building in District 622. Staff need to be informed about caseload numbers in the district, and the criteria to hire additional staff so they know what to expect with student caseloads. Staff who have been in the district for longer than five years report that their caseloads were much lower in the past and now they are frustrated in having to adjust to serving more students. They need assistance and information in adjusting to increased caseload numbers. Communication between special education coordinators and supervisors to teachers and building administrators needs improvement. Teachers report that they have not been treated respectfully from some coordinators and supervisors when they have asked questions or contacted them. In addition, many teachers and administrators report that they do not understand the roles of the supervisor and coordinator and what is included in their job duties. These positions are intended to provide support, guidance, and assistance to building staff. Supervisors and coordinators must always communicate with staff in an appropriate manner. A frequently cited concern is that special education staff and administration do not have a common understanding of policies and procedures that guide special education service provision in the district. Regular education teachers asked for 38

42 training to understand the role of special education and best practices in special education. It is a critical need for all staff to work together toward a common goal for special education services. There isn t a known plan for identifying resources and allocations for staff and materials. It is important for District 622 to have a process to routinely evaluate program resources. MDE financial data for District 622 can be used for yearly comparisons of special education costs and revenue to analyze changes and take possible action. Federal instructional settings for students with disabilities need to be monitored and routinely evaluated at least annually. In order to increase inclusion practices for students and improve least restrictive environment percentages using Federal Instructional Settings, administrators and teachers need to understand that the decisions made at IEP meetings related to programs and placements are tracked and monitored by the district and the state. District 622 reports from MDE for Federal Instructional Settings can be seen on pages 40 and 41. In general, districts should work toward the most students with disabilities in the lowest numbered setting, (setting 1), and the fewest students in the higher numbered settings,(settings 2-8). 39

43 40

44 41

45 7. Students demonstrate progress as a result of their special education program. 7.1 Students demonstrate progress with their academic and personal outcomes. Federal and state laws and rules specify that the IEP team must determine the frequency and the methods for reporting each student s progress on each goal on the IEP. Students with disabilities must receive progress reports at least as often as their general education peers. The IEP team must review and revise the IEP at least annually to ensure that the student is making adequate progress on their academic and personal goals. 7.2 Students and their parents perceive student participation in the program as positive. As part of the Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (MNCIMP), districts must include parent surveys. Parents provide survey information to the district regarding their perceptions of the special education programs in the district. 7.3 Special education staff routinely check for student progress and make adjustments in their teaching if students are not making progress. The special education case manager coordinates the progress reporting for all special education and related services staff who provide services to students. Progress reporting frequency is determined by the IEP team, and occurs at least as often as progress is reported for non-disabled students. Special education teachers and related services staff measure and document student progress. Adjustments in the teaching methods or teaching strategies are made to increase student progress, as outlined in the IEP. 7.4 Special education programs include self-advocacy skills, independent living skills, and collaboration with appropriate service agencies. In Minnesota, the student's needs, including self-advocacy skills, and special education instruction and services to be provided must be agreed upon through the development of an IEP. The plan must address the student's need to develop skills to live and work as independently as possible within the community. By grade 9 or age 14, the plan must address the student's needs for transition from secondary services to postsecondary education and training, employment, community participation, recreation, and leisure and home living. In developing the IEP, districts must inform parents of the full range of 42

46 transitional goals and related services that should be considered. The IEP must include a statement of the needed transition services, including a statement of the interagency responsibilities or linkages or both before secondary services are concluded. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): Parents are generally satisfied with their child s participation in special education services. Survey results from parents of students with disabilities show that parents are overall satisfied with the special education services their child receives. Especially strong are the relationships between parents and staff. Many parents commented on surveys that they are very pleased with the staff who are caring, hard working, and teachers who go above and beyond. Survey results from parents indicate that communication between the staff working with their child and them is positive and effective. Parent survey responses indicate that parents agree strongly that their opinions about their child s needs are requested and considered in decision making when the IEP is developed. Weakness(es): Staff report that special education services are not focused on specially designed instruction across the district. Instead of teaching strategies for learning and focusing on IEP goals and objectives through specially designed instruction, special education services are tutoring and giving homework help in most buildings. Without specially designed instruction, students are not able to become independent learners, which is essential for students with disabilities. The opportunities for transition for students in grade 9 and higher can be expanded and improved by establishing better community partnerships and worksites for students within the district. The communities in the district can be the first choice for transition opportunities for students with disabilities for work experience, community participation, and jobs and job training. 8. Quality special education programs emphasize research-based practices across grade levels and areas of disability. 8.1 The daily program for each student with a disability derives from the Individual Education Plan (IEP). 43

47 Individualized Education Program (IEP) planning or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) planning are the processes of determining, based on assessment data, a child s or student s educational needs and then completing a written statement, such as an IEP or IFSP, that is developed, reviewed, and revised by a team of individuals. The team must consist of the required individuals as specified in state and federal law. Each IEP or IFSP describes the educational program designed by the team to meet the child s unique needs and must contain specific information about the child, as required by state and federal law. 8.2 All teachers use a variety of teaching strategies and approaches that have been proven effective in educating all children, including students with disabilities. For each building in the district, there is a common core of learning that provides students with knowledge, skills, and understandings to function effectively in a global society. The curriculum framework outlines the instructional strategies and philosophies that will be used to teach all students. The curriculum is age appropriate and developmentally sound. All teachers have access to a variety of teaching resources and strategies that have been proven effective for student learning. 8.3 Researched-based practices such as direct instruction and mastery learning techniques are used with students. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 encourages and in some cases requires the use of instruction based on scientific research. The emphasis on scientifically based research supports the consistent use of instructional methods that have been proven effective. Research and data based instructional strategies have been identified in the literature and when used in conjunction with objective and systematic assessment can lead to marked improvements in student performance. Instructional practices such as direct instruction, mastery learning, curriculum-based measurement, and the Kansas Strategic Learning Model are all examples of sound instructional techniques. 8.4 Staff understand the role of assistive technology and services in supporting instruction of children with disabilities. Essential assistive technology is available and is used in instruction. Assistive technology (AT) is defined as both a device and a service. The term assistive technology device means any item, piece of equipment, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of a child with a 44

48 disability. The term assistive technology service means any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. School staff understand the role of assistive technology and services in supporting instruction of children with disabilities. Basic knowledge of assistive technology services and devices includes: 1. Understanding AT, including legal requirements, its purpose and functional application for the student s educational program. 2. Demonstrating awareness of a variety of assistive technology devices and services and the ability to integrate technology into educational programs. 3. Demonstrating the ability to use appropriate AT in a variety of educational settings. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): District 622 is starting to implement a Response to Intervention (RTI) program, which includes research based practices and teaching strategies that are proven effective in educating all students, including students with disabilities. RTI is being implemented in selected buildings in the district. Core principles of RTI are: intervene early, believe that all children can learn, use a multi-tier model of service delivery, use a problem-solving model, use research based practices, monitor student progress, and use data to make decisions. Weakness(es): The service model typically used in District 622 to address IEP goals for students with Learning Disabilities (LD) and Other Health Disabilities (OHD) is primarily a pull-out from the regular classroom model. This means that students are pulled out of their regular education classroom and the special education teachers address their IEP goals in a separate room/space. The preferred model for special education services for students with LD and OHD is inclusion and not a pull-out model. Inclusion is when students remain in regular education classrooms with supports, modifications, and accommodations. Few staff are familiar with using the recommended SETT (Student, Environment, Task, Tools) process for determining appropriate assistive technology (AT) resources for individual students. The SETT process is the recommended model in Minnesota to make decisions about AT for a student with a disability. Procedures for technology purchases and maintenance are not clear to staff and are not known by special education teachers and related services staff. Teachers report confusion and frustration with not getting support and attention when they need assistance with technology. 45

49 9. The building climate reflects a sense of belonging to the total school environment for students with disabilities and special education staff. 9.1 Students receive special education services in the building they would attend if they were not disabled. Minnesota rule specifies that classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services, and supplementary aids and services must be essentially equivalent to the regular education program. Buildings where students with disabilities receive services must provide an atmosphere that is conducive to learning and meet the students special physical, sensory, and emotional needs. 9.2 School personnel make every effort to include students with disabilities in all school activities, programs, and the general education curriculum. Federal law requires that each public school takes steps to ensure that its children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to non-disabled children in the area served by the agency, including art, music, industrial arts, consumer and homemaking education, and vocational education. Nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities must be accessible to students with disabilities. These services and activities may include counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, recreational activities, special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the school district. 9.3 School personnel communicate positive regard for students in all settings. Staff in each school building ensure that all students with disabilities and their families feel respected and welcome in the school, even if the students come from outside the school s attendance area or if they are participating in community-based programs. The building principal sets the tone and establishes a climate of respect for diverse populations including students with disabilities. 9.4 Regular education personnel make accommodations and adaptations in their classrooms to include students with disabilities. For a student with a disability, the IEP must include a statement of the program modifications necessary for the student to benefit from the educational program. All special education and related services and programming must be delivered according to the IEP. The district must ensure that each student s IEP is accessible to the general education teachers, special education teacher, related services providers, and any other staff that are responsible for IEP implementation. 46

50 9.5 Administrators support inclusion for students with disabilities and assist teachers in implementing inclusion practices. Building administrators are responsible for ensuring that students have access to and feel confident and accepted when participating in all school academic and extracurricular activities. IDEA regulations require that an IEP include a statement of any individual modifications and a statement of the special education and related services the student with a disability will receive to enable participation as appropriate in the general curriculum. This also includes participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities in which non-disabled students participate. Building administrators assist all staff in implementation of inclusion practices. 9.6 School personnel expect students with disabilities to be successful. All school members, including faculty, staff, and students acknowledge and respect each student for his or her progress and achievement. Public displays of respect and acknowledgment extend to all students, including students with disabilities. For example, all students have opportunities to display their work, artwork, and accomplishments. All school members promote opportunities for student success. 9.7 Effective positive behavioral supports and interventions are available to all children, including students with disabilities throughout the school environment. Minnesota rule includes a policy for positive approaches to behavioral interventions. Effective behavioral intervention programs focus on skill acquisition rather than merely behavior reduction or elimination. Behavior intervention policies, programs, or procedures must be designed to enable a student to benefit from an appropriate individualized educational program, along with developing skills to enable them to function as independently as possible. Schools develop and implement positive behavioral supports that are proactive and educative in nature, and rely on data collected during a functional assessment. District 622 Findings: Strength(s): School building administrators are recognized as a positive support system for special education staff and students. Parents surveyed are generally satisfied with special education services. See pages 49 and 50 for parent survey results. 47

51 District 622 has implemented a program in selected buildings called Minnesota School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS). This is a systems approach to enhancing the capacity of schools to successfully educate all students and especially those with challenging behavior. PBIS focuses on using proactive, research based strategies to achieve the desired outcomes. Weakness(es): There is a perceived idea in District 622 that even mildly disabled students need special education paraprofessionals in order to be considered for inclusion programming in the general education classroom. Findings show that District 622 staff vary in their beliefs that students with disabilities are expected to be successful. MDE data shows that in District 622 students with disabilities are not in regular education settings at the rate required by Minnesota Special Education Performance Plan targets for all school districts in Minnesota. Special education staff report a sense of us versus them within the school setting. There is not a shared responsibility between regular and special education when working with students with disabilities. Regular and special education teachers and administrators do not have a common set of expectations for students with disabilities in District 622. Some special education staff have strong beliefs that students must be served in a resource setting with only students with the same disability. For example, teachers believe that it is not workable for students with learning disabilities and students with emotional/behavior disorders to work together in the same special education classroom. Because special education services are individually based, it is possible for a special education teacher to manage and facilitate successful special education services across different categories of disabilities. 48

52 Special Education Perspective Data Surveys were disseminated to parents of students receiving special education services in District 622 asking for feedback related to special education. In addition surveys were sent to regular education teachers, special education teachers, special education paraprofessionals, and administrators. Return rates were: District 622 Special Education Parents Regular Education Teachers Special Education Teachers Special Education paraprofessionals Administrators 250 surveys returned 23 % of surveys returned 52 % of surveys returned 45 % of surveys returned 58% of surveys returned A five point scale was used to define the ratings of each question: 0 Not Applicable, Not Observed 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree Pages 49 and 50 document the parent survey and results. Charts on pages are survey results from regular education teachers, special education teachers, special education paraprofessionals, and administrators. Parent Survey and Results The following chart represents the responses from 250 parents who completed and returned a parent survey. Results were generally very positive and responses are recorded with the number from the scale of 1 to 5. Questions Question 1: Communication between the staff working with my child and myself is positive and effective. Question 2: My child is learning to be as independent as possible, given the nature of their disability. Question 3: My child has equal access to the services, programs, and opportunities that are available to all children, including those without disabilities. Question 4: The building(s) where my child receives services is physically accessible to them. Question 5: I am part of the planning team when my child moves from one program or classroom to another. Average Rating Question 6: Transitioning from one program/classroom to another has gone smoothly for my child. Question 7: I am part of the team that makes decisions about my child

53 Question 8: My opinions about my child's needs are requested and considered in decision making when the IEP or IIIP is developed. Question 9: The IEP/IIIP team is sensitive to my family's values and goals for our child. Question 10: I understand my child's IEP/IIIP Question 11: The staff who serve my child cooperate in planning and delivering services. Question 12: Paraprofessionals working with my child understand my child's needs. Question 13: I receive regular updates from special education staff that give me a clear understanding of my child's progress in meeting their goals and objectives. Question 14: As my child accomplishes their IEP/IIIP goals, the team is responsive in updating the educational plan in a timely manner. Question 15: I know what options are available to me if there is disagreement about the plan or I feel the district is not carrying out my child's IFSP/IEP/IIIP as written. Question 16: I am satisfied with the amount of time my child spends in activities with children who do not have disabilities. Question 17: Special education staff have sufficient resources available for carrying out the programming options for my child. Question 18: If my child first entered special education in grades K - 12, I was involved with the school staff in trying different strategies to improve my child's success in the general education classroom. Question 19: I feel better able to meet my child's needs because of the supports and services they receive Question 20: Overall, I am satisfied with the services my child receives

54 North St. Paul School District Q1 Staff are provided necessary resources to implement a successful special education program. Resources include a sufficient number of staff employed to maintain an effective teacher-student ratio Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q2 Staff are provided the necessary resources to implement a successful special education program. Resources include adequate instructional supports/materials and special education classrooms are centrally located for maximum integration of students with disabilities Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 51

55 North St. Paul School District Q3 Staff are provided opportunities to attend relevant training opportunities that strengthen their ability to provide effective services to students and enhance their ability to select strategies to improve student academic achievement Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q4 Staff are provided with a variety of appropriate instructional materials, supplies, and equipment to meet the needs of a variety of student learning styles within the special education classroom and general education classroom Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 52

56 North St. Paul School District Q5 Staff have a clear understanding of the state and federal guidelines established for implementing procedures to identify students with disabilities. Guidelines include completing pre referral documentations with adequate consultative services from the special education teacher to the general education teacher Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q6 Staff have a clear understanding of the state and federal guidelines established for placement of students with disabilities. Identification, placement, and grouping practices are determined by the needs of the student with a disability Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 53

57 North St. Paul School District Q7 Staff maximize student s participation in the general education curriculum using a full array of services delivery options with the goal of inclusion in the general education setting and curriculum Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q8 Special education and general education staff share responsibility for the educational achievement of students with disabilities. Staff collaborate to enhance student learning and every effort is made to serve students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 54

58 North St. Paul School District Q9 Staff provide students with disabilities full access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities including special transportation when required Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q10 Staff evaluate the progress of students and communicate with parents on a regular basis using established progress reporting procedures Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 55

59 North St. Paul School District Q11 Staff evaluate program processes such as identification procedures, referral/intake, placement, and termination of services, instructional methods, and curriculum routinely Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q12 Staff routinely check for student progress and make appropriate adjustments in their teaching. Programs include transition activities, self-advocacy skills, independent living skills, and collaboration with appropriate outside agencies Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 56

60 North St. Paul School District Q13 Staff use a variety of teaching strategies and approaches that have been proven effective in educating all children. Research based practices, such as direct instruction and mastery-learning techniques, are implemented Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q14 Staff understand the role of assistive technology and services in supporting instruction of children with disabilities. Essential assistive technology is available and used Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 57

61 North St. Paul School District Q15 Staff create a sense of belonging to the total school environment for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities attend the building they would attend if they were not disabled Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed North St. Paul School District Q16 Staff feel supported by administration for their efforts to implement inclusion practices for students with disabilities. Regular education staff make accommodations and adaptations in their classroom as a result of inclusion efforts Median By Position Admin Para Reg Ed Sp. Ed 58

62 References Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Assistive Technology. Retrieved September 7, 2007, from ing_supports/assistive_technology/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education, (2006). Compliance and Assistance Traditional Review. Retrieved September 7, 2007, from Education_Monitoring/Traditional_Review/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). EDRS Funding. Retrieved September 7, 2007 from DRS-Funding/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education, (2006). Minnesota Categorical Disability Information. Retrieved September 7, 2007 from ormation/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education, (2007). Minnesota Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education, (2006). Minnesota State Interagency Coordination. Retrieved September 7, 2007, from s_services/mn_state_interagency_coord_mnsic/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Minnesota Program Finance. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006) Minnesota State Performance Plan. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from ate_performance_grant/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006), Principal s Role in Special Education Online. Retrieved September 7, 2007 from Resources/Principals_Role_in_Special_Education/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Special Education Child Count. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from hild_count/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Special Education Transition. Retrieved October 7, 2007 from Education/Birth_to_Age_21_Programs_Services/Secondary_Transition/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Staff Development Reporting. Retrieved October 7, 2007 from ff_development_reporting/index.html 59

63 Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Staff Development Resources. Retrieved October 7, 2007 from s/staff_development_resources_and_tools/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Total Special Education Standards Manual (TSES). Retrieved September 7, 2007 from ecial_education_system_manual/index.html Minnesota Department of Education, Special Education. (2006). Workload Consideration for Effective Special Education WorkLoadAll[ALL].pdf. Retrieved September 7, 2007 from 60