An Evaluation of Services for Students with Disabilities

An Evaluation of Services for Students with Disabilities

Key Findings and Recommendations for Future Action

Killeen Independent School District

Final Report July 2005

STETSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 13910 Champion Forest Dr. I Suite 208 I Houston, TX 77069

281.440.4220 phone I 281.440.4280 fax I www.stetsonassociates.com

i

Evaluation of Services for Students with Disabilities

Killeen Independent School District

Table of Contents I. Introduction …………………………………………………………………. p. 1 Rationale for the Killeen ISD Evaluation ……………………………. p. 2

Effective Practices for Students with Disabilities…………………… p. 4

Evaluation Methods …………………………………………………… p. 5

Evaluation Committee………………………………………... p. 5

Focus Groups ………………………………………………… p. 6

Classroom Observations and Teacher Interviews………… p. 7

Parent Survey ………………………………………………… p. 8

Faculty Survey ………………………………………………… p. 8

Interview Process …………………………………..…………. p. 9

Comparable District Review ………………………………… p. 10 Central Themes Addressed in the Evaluation Report …………….. p. 10

Theme One: A Common Vision for Students with

Disabilities………………………………………………………. p. 10

Theme Two: Student-Centered Service in the

Least Restrictive Environment………………………………… p. 11

Theme Three: Effectiveness………………………………….. p. 11

Theme Four: Sufficient, Efficient and Appropriateness

of Staff……………………………………………………………. p. 12

Theme Five: Collaborative Relationships with Parents, Staff

and Schools………………………………………………………. p. 12

Organization of the Report………………………………….……………p. 13

References………………………………………………………………. p. 13

ii

II. Theme One: A Common Vision for Students with Disabilities …….. p. 14 Leadership ……………………………………………………………… p. 15

Focus Group Comments Regarding Communication…………. p. 18

Common Caring .………………………………………………………. p. 20

Shared Ownership ……………………………………………………. . p. 20

Intervention Assistance ……………………………………………….. p. 24 Focus Group Comments Regarding Staff Development……… p. 27

Recommendations……………………………………………………… p. 30

III. Theme Two: Student-Centered Service in the Least Restrictive Environment ………………………………………………………………….. p. 32

Least Restrictive Environment and Access to the General

Curriculum ………………………………………………………………. p. 32

Decision-Making Process …………………………………………….. p. 34

Issues Emerging from Observations and Data …………………….. p. 35

Focus Group Comments regarding FAPE…………………. p. 41

Recommendations …..………………………………………………… p. 45

IV. Theme Three: Effectiveness………………………………………………. p. 47

Campus/Classroom Climate.………………………………………….. p. 48

Instructional Planning …………………………………………………. p. 50

Focus Group Comments Regarding Assessment…………. p. 55

Access to the General Education Curriculum ………………………. p. 57

Range and Appropriate use of Instructional Materials …………….. p. 59

Instructional Strategies ………………………………………………... p. 60

Accommodations and Modifications …………………………………. p. 62

Educational Technology ………………………………………………. p. 66

Grouping ………………………………………………………………… p. 67

Classroom Organization ………………………………………………. p. 68

Positive Behavior Intervention and Support ………………………… p. 69

Recommendations ……………………………………………………… p. 73

iii

V. Theme Four: Sufficient, Efficient and Appropriateness of Staff……. p. 77

Sufficiency …………………………………………………………….. p. 78

AEIS Information for 2003-2004 …………………………….. p. 79

2003-2004 Comparable District Study ……………………… p. 84

Efficiency ………………………………………………………………. p. 100

Factors that Impact Efficiency ……………………………….. p. 100

Non-Categorical Staffing Models ……………………………. p. 102

Use of Paraprofessionals …………………………………….. p. 104

Use of Peer Tutors ……………………………………………. p. 105

Instructional Settings …………………………………………. p. 105

Scheduling Strategies ………………………………………… p. 109

Instructional Strategies ………………………………………. p. 110

Appropriate Use of Staff ……………………………………………… p. 112

Factors that Impact Appropriate Use of Staff …………….... p. 113

Appropriately Trained and Qualified Staff…………………….. p. 113

Age Appropriate Location and Resources …………………. p. 115

Equitable Assignment and Schedule ……………………….. p. 116

Recommendations ……………………………………………………. p. 121

VI. Theme Five: Collaborative Relationships with Parents, Staff

and Schools………………………………………………………………… p. 124 Parent-School Relationships………………………………………… p. 125

Information From Parent Survey Comments………………. p. 130

Parent Responses Regarding Positive Aspects of Services…….. p. 130

Caring and Sensitive Staff…………………………………… p. 130

Effective Communication…………………………………….. p. 131

Programs, Services, and Strategies………………………… p. 131

Parent Responses Regarding Suggestions for Improving

Services………………………………………………………………… p. 132

iv

Communication……………………………………………….. p. 132

Staff Sensitivity and Treatment for Students

with Disabilities………………………………………………… p. 133

Programs and Services………………………….…………… p. 133

Training and Supervision…………………………………….. p. 134

Teacher to Teacher ………………………………………………….. p. 135

Teacher and Paraprofessional……………………………………….. p. 138

Administrator and Teacher ………………………………………….. p. 139

Recommendations …………………………………………………… p. 143

VII. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………… p. 148

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Framework of Effective Practices Appendix B: Data Collection Tools

§ Key Personnel Interview Questions

§ Principal Interview

§ Classroom Observation

§ Campus Summary

§ Parent Survey

§ Faculty Survey

§ Comparable District Questionnaire

Appendix C: Focus Group Summaries

Appendix D: Survey Results

§ Parent Survey Results

§ Parent Suggestions for Improvement

§ Parent Comments regarding Positive Aspects

§ Faculty Survey Results

§ Faculty Suggestions for Improvement

§ Faculty Comments regarding Positive Aspects

Appendix E: Resource Documents

v

§ Staffing Checklist

§ Factors that Impact the Need for Staff

§ Elementary Scheduling

§ Middle School Scheduling

§ High School Scheduling

Tables

Table 1: Focus Groups by Category……………………………….…………… p. 7 Table 2: Killeen ISD Classrooms that Received On-Site Visits………………. p. 7

Table 3: Demographics of Returned Faculty Surveys……………………….. p. 9

Table 4: Focus Group Comments Regarding Communication……………… p. 19

Table 5: Focus Group Comments Regarding Procedures…………………… p. 19

Table 6: Focus Group Comments Regarding Attitude

toward Special Education……………………………………………… p. 20

Table 7: Focus Group Comments Regarding Staff Development…………… p. 28

Table 8: Campus Special Education Referrals: August 2004-May 2005…… p. 38

Table 9: Focus Group Comments Regarding FAPE…………………………… p. 42

Table 10: Campus Findings Concerning Instruction…………………………….. p. 51

Table 11: Parent Responses to Instructional Planning Questions …………… p. 54

Table 12: Faculty Responses to Instructional Planning Questions………….. p. 55

Table 13: Campus Findings Concerning Access to the General Curriculum.. p. 58

Table 14: Faculty Responses Regarding General Education Teachers’ Skills in

Strategies for Addressing Needs of Diverse Learners…………. p. 61

Table 15: Parent Responses to Accommodations and Modifications ………. p. 63

Table 16: Faculty Responses to Accommodations and Modifications………. p. 64

Table 17: Barriers to Providing Support for Students with Disabilities in

in General Education………………………………………………….. p. 66

Table 18: Campus Findings Concerning Grouping……………………………. p. 67

Table 19: Focus Group Comments Regarding Behavior…………………….. p. 70

Table 20: Campus Findings Regarding Positive Behavior Supports………… p. 70

Table 21: TEA AEIS 2003-2004 Report……………………………………….. p. 80

vi

Table 22: State, Regional and Killeen ISD Special Education Students to

Special Education Teacher Ratios………………………………….. p. 81

Table 23: Comparable Districts’ Special Education Student to Teacher

Ratios…………………………………………………………………… p. 81

Table 24: Comparable Districts’ Special Education Student to Teacher

Ratios Excluding Speech Only Students …………………………… p. 82

Table 25: 2004-05 Budget and Financial Data Comparisons………………… p. 83

Table 26: Comparable Districts’ Total Number of Special Education Students

to Total Number of Special Education Teachers Served Including

Speech Only ……………………………………………………………. p. 85

Table 27: Comparable Districts’ Total Number of Special Education Students

Excluding Speech Only Students to Total Number of Special

Education Teachers Served Excluding SLPs ……………................ p. 86

Table 28: Comparable Districts’ Total Number of Special Education

Students to Total Number of Special Education

Paraprofessionals Served Excluding Speech Only Students……… p. 87

Table 29: Comparable Districts’ Total Number of Appraisal Staff to Total

Number of Special Education Students Served Excluding

Speech Only Students ………………………………………………... p. 88

Table 30: Comparable Districts’ Total Number of Students Receiving Speech

Language Therapy to Total Number of SLPs ……………………… p. 89


Students Served Including Speech Only Students to Total

Number of Special Education Instructional Coordinators………….. p. 90


Instructional Coordinators to Total Number of Special Education

Students Served Excluding Speech Only Students ………………. p. 91


Instructional Coordinators to Total Number of Special Education

Teachers Including SLPs …………………………………………….. p. 92

vii

Table 33: Comparable Districts’ Total Number of Students with Autism

As a Disability Condition ……………………………………………… p. 93

Table 34: High School Special Education Enrollment and Student-Staff Ratio p. 93

Table 35: Middle School Special Education Enrollment and

Student-Staff Ratio………………………………………………………. p. 93

Table 36: Elementary School Special Education Enrollment and

Student-Staff Ratio………………………………………………………. p. 94

Table 37: Percent of Faculty Agreement re: Student Placement…………….… p. 103

Table 38: Faculty Percent of Agreement re: Skill of General Ed Teachers …. p. 110

Table 39: Percentage of Agreement re: Skill of General Education

Teachers………………………………………………………………… p. 114

Table 40: Focus Group Comments regarding Staffing………………………… p. 120

Table 41: Number of Parents Responding to the Parent Survey by Level….. p. 125

Table 42: Contrasting Parent-Faculty Perceptions on Questions regarding

A Common Vision……………………………………………………… p. 126

Table 43: Parent View Regarding Instructional Strategies and Modifications p. 127

Table 44: Contrasting Parent-Faculty Perceptions on Key Survey

Questions re: Positive Family-School Partnerships……………….. p. 128

Table 45: Survey Regarding Collaboration Between General and Special

Education Teachers………………………………………………….. p. 136

Table 46: Survey Responses to Faculty Regarding the Pre-Referral Process

And Status of Special Educators…………………………………….. p. 137

Table 47: Faculty Survey Questions Addressing Administrative Support….. p. 140

Table 48: Focus Group Comments Regarding Collaboration……………….. p. 141

An Evaluation of Services for Students with Disabilities Killeen Independent School District

Page 1

Introduction In June of 2005, the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. had published the

proposed regulations for the Individuals With Disabilities Act of 2004. These regulations

are consistent with past regulations, however Congress continues to place an increasing

importance on Least Restrictive Environment, Access to the General Education

Curriculum and Parent Partnerships, in addition to many other issues. There are

powerful new forces at work in education today that are directly impacting the quality of

services for students with disabilities across this nation and at the state and local levels.

The No Child Left Behind Act enacted in January 2002, combined with the recently

reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, signaled yet another formal

legislative milestone that set high standards for services for diverse learners. Like no

other time in our national history, schools are being judged on the success of every

student, including students with disabilities.

Texas is enhancing its accountability system with a new and revised statewide

assessment instrument and is responding to the No Child Left Behind legislation by

reviewing efforts to assure equity as well as excellence for all students, including those

with disabilities. The current Texas school finance system is under scrutiny and is facing

serious challenges in the Special Session to address this statewide crisis. School

districts are carefully examining practices to ensure strategies that support achievement

and excellence for all learners are cost effective. This evaluation, commissioned by the

Killeen Independent School District (Killeen ISD), reflects a serious commitment to this

examination effort.

In 2004, Killeen ISD commissioned a comprehensive evaluation of the quality and

impact of services provided to students with disabilities. Stetson and Associates,

Incorporated (Stetson and Associates, Inc.), was engaged to provide an evaluation of

current services, to gain the perspectives of stakeholders, to gather meaningful data

from a variety of sources and to capture the strengths and areas of concern relative to

services for students with disabilities. The report that follows has been developed with

the active participation of Killeen ISD administrators, teachers, support service providers

and with the input of students and parents of students with disabilities. This report


Page 2

provides a summary of the issues that impact the services for students with disabilities,

their parents and the educators who serve them. It also provides specific

recommendations for program improvements reflecting a standard for quality supported

in current effective practice research.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe:

• A rationale for conducting this study;

• The evaluation framework for quality services used to view the current practices;

• The methods used to gather evaluation data;

• The themes that emerged from our analysis of these data;

• The district characteristics that impact services to students with disabilities; and

• The format used for this report.

Rationale for the Killeen ISD Evaluation

There are many factors that contribute to Killeen ISD’s request for an evaluation of

services to students with disabilities. The district’s stated commitment to putting student

needs first, streamlining administrative structure, becoming more responsive to parent

and student needs and its focus on becoming an Exemplary school district are but a few

reasons to justify this study. An objective review of the factors that impact the quality of

services for students with disabilities within the context of students needs, administrative

structure and school–parent responsiveness can assist the district in identifying the

assets and barriers to achieving Exemplary status.

Recently new leadership in Killeen ISD has fostered innovative practices to promote the

district movement towards continuous improvement. A movement has begun to provide

related services in the general education setting when appropriate, such as the

Occupational Therapist who works with students in inclusive environments. In addition,

some classes have been merged, where appropriate, in an effort to reduce the number

of segregated, self-contained programmatic-type services and move to more inclusive

service delivery model. These practices promote positive working relationships, greater

collaboration, increasing productivity and a sense of ownership for all learners. All of

these are critical components of quality services for students with disabilities. A review

of the status of special education services within the context of these critical factors

could assist the district in laying a foundation for continuous improvement.


Page 3

National and state accountability initiatives now focus on the achievement of all students

and have heightened attention regarding the quality of services for students with

disabilities as mentioned earlier in this section of the report. Recent decisions regarding

participation of students with disabilities in the Texas State Development Alternative

Assessment (SDAA) have resulted in more attention being directed to the need of these

students to have greater access to and focus on the general curriculum. This emphasis

should result in an increased participation in the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills (TAKS), rather than the SDAA, by students with disabilities.

There is an increased recognition of the importance of each teacher in providing quality

instructional practices that impact the learning of all students. As districts experience an

increase in the diversity of learners, implementation of highly effective instructional

practices are not only important but are critical to successful outcomes.

Over the past years, delivery of special education services has evolved from

categorical/label-driven practices to those that support services to students based upon

their unique needs. Although Killeen ISD is moving toward a more inclusive model, most

services are delivered in pullout settings. For many other students, the services appear

to be label driven. Some students with disabilities are clustered on campuses other than

their home school. A review of the process for determining the delivery systems may

assist the district in developing a more appropriate process to ensure services are

provided based on student needs.

The district also recognizes that there may be practices that are impacting the allocation

of staff and the efficient and appropriate use of personnel, such as the mobility of the

students from military families. Killeen, Texas is the home of Fort Hood Military

Installation, which works collaboratively with Killeen ISD. Killeen ISD recognizes the

critical importance of using resources wisely in order to address these unique needs. A

review of the factors that impact staffing could assist the district in allocating staff in a

more efficient manner.


Page 4

Effective Practices for Students with Disabilities This report is not a compliance review rather it is based upon a review of the services for

students with disabilities within the context of effective practices for all students.

Fortunately, education practices have evolved to support highly effective educational

opportunities for general and special education students who, in most cases, learn side

by side. A unified system is preferred over a parallel system in which students requiring

assistance are educated in different places with different curricula and materials and by

different personnel. When students with disabilities require an environment other than

the general education classroom to address one or more of their instructional objectives,

the services that are provided must be highly individualized and must be designed to

prepare each student for their next environment.

Effective practices for students with disabilities include a shared and common vision for

educating these students. Governance systems must be in place to ensure that there

are clearly defined program administration, policies and guidelines for program

implementation. Early identification and intervention practices to ensure student

success must also be in place. Nondiscriminatory evaluations utilizing a variety of

instruments from a variety of sources provide a foundation for developing a meaningful

Individualized Educational Program (IEP) for each student. A team of qualified

individuals meets and considers the strengths and needs of the student and, with a high

degree of collaboration, develops an IEP that supports success for each student.

In most cases, students should be educated using the general education curriculum in

the general education setting. Instruction in a specialized setting occurs only when the

nature and severity of a student’s disability is such that even with the provision of

accommodations, modifications and in-class personal support, their education cannot be

achieved in the general education setting. Highly skilled teachers and other support

providers utilize an array of effective strategies and resources to support the instruction

of students, including monitoring and reporting student progress. Decisions regarding

the staffing and scheduling of support is based upon the needs of the students.


Page 5

Effective practice is also dependent upon a high degree of communication and

collaboration between all stakeholders. Effective practice also includes community

support and parent involvement that promote shared ownership of all students. With the

implementation of effective practices, schools can create a seamless system where no

student falls between the cracks and all students experience success.

The following sections of this report organize the findings and recommendations

presented. There is a section for each of the topics related to effective practices. A

framework of effective practices is also included in Appendix A.

The Evaluation Methods

A comprehensive evaluation of services provided to students with disabilities in Killeen

ISD required the examination of data from a wide range of sources. Stetson and

Associates, Inc. selected seven basic methodologies that include:

• A Steering Committee to set the stage for the study of special education services

in Killeen ISD;

• A planning session with key special education central office personnel;

• Focus group sessions for multiple stakeholders, including Killeen ISD staff,

students and parents of students with disabilities;

• Structured classroom observations of all campuses;

• Surveys of parent and faculty perceptions of Killeen ISD services;

• Structured interviews with key central office personnel; and

• A review of comparable district statistics.

The data collection instruments and surveys are provided in Appendix B, in the order

described above. The following is a brief description of the methodologies of the Killeen

ISD evaluation.

Evaluation Committee.

A steering committee met for the purpose of setting a vision related to quality services

for students with disabilities. The committee met in March of 2005 and reviewed positive

and negative factors that impact services for students with disabilities. In addition,


Page 6

meetings were held with the Director of Special Education to obtain information

regarding district services and to plan and organize the evaluation.

Focus Groups.

The focus group process is used for a variety of purposes, including group

brainstorming, planning and as a mechanism for gathering participant responses to

questions posed for program review and evaluation. This approach is widely used today

in business and education applications and has a growing reputation as a method for

gaining critical information for those most affected by the questions of the day

(Greenbaum, 1998; Krueger, 1994). The focus group process was originally used to

identify qualitative data within the realm of sociological research. The process requires

the evaluator to pose the same questions to a variety of respondent groups. The

information is then analyzed to determine common themes and to identify areas

requiring further study throughout the evaluation process.

In March of 2005, seventeen focus group sessions were conducted. Each session

followed the same sequence. Following an introduction of the focus group as a critical

aspect of the evaluation process, the participants responded to two questions:

1. What is working with regard to services for students with disabilities in Killeen

ISD?

2. What is not working with regard to services for students with disabilities in

Killeen ISD?

Numerous staff members participated in these meetings. Their responses were later

analyzed and sorted by theme. Table 1 provides a list of the focus group categories.


Page 7

Table 1. Focus Groups by Category

Focus Groups

High School Students with Disabilities Parents of Students with Disabilities Parent Randomly Selected Program Evaluation Steering Committee Superintendent’s Council Elementary Principals/Assistant Principals Secondary Principals/Assistant Principals Diagnosticians/LSSPs Special Education Facilitators Specialists, Related Service Personnel Speech/Language Pathologists High School Special Education Coordinators Instructional Specialists Elementary General Education Teachers Elementary Special Education Teachers Secondary General Education Teachers Secondary Special Education Teachers Paraprofessionals Total: 18

In general, each of the focus groups was a fast-paced session in which all members

participated and remained focused on the task. These sessions yielded comments that

are divided among the five broad themes contained in this report.

Classroom Observations and Teacher Interviews.

A random selection of Killeen ISD schools were visited during the Spring of 2005. Fifteen

elementary campuses, five middle schools, 3 high schools, one Career and Technology

Education (CTE) Center were visited. Table 2 provides the number of schools and

classrooms visited by categories of general education and special education.

Table 2. Killeen ISD Classrooms that Received On-Site Visits

Level/Campus General Education Special Education Total

Elementary (15) 17 48 65 Middle School (5) 12 18 30 High School (3) 5 19 24 CTE Center (1) 3 0 3 Total Visited 37 85 122


Page 8

Each elementary campus typically required one half-day of observation to visit with the

campus principal and visit the selected classrooms. The high schools received a full-day

visit. Both special education classrooms and general education classrooms were

visited. A structured observation guide was used. These structured classroom visits

also provided the opportunity for the evaluator to observe the range of students served

and various aspects of the delivery of instruction from the teacher’s perspective. The

quality of the classroom observation tool that was developed for use in Killeen ISD and

several other client districts has been recognized in related presentations at the state

and national levels. The information from each classroom visit was analyzed and

combined to complete a summary report for each campus. Information obtained through

this process is detailed in Theme Three.

Parent Survey.

A survey to examine the degree of parental satisfaction with services provided was

made available to parents of students with disabilities on two occasions. The survey

was provided in Spanish and in English. Parents were sent the survey and an envelope

for return directly to Stetson and Associates, Inc. These surveys were disseminated to

approximately 4,765 parents of students with disabilities. Seven hundred and fifty-nine

surveys were returned for a return rate of sixteen percent.

Parents were asked to respond to statements related to their satisfaction with the

progress their child is making in school, to their perceptions of principal, teacher and

diagnostician, responsiveness to the needs of parents and perceptions regarding

strengths and concerns regarding the services provided to students with disabilities.

Refer to Appendix C for a summary of the results and detailed analyses of the parent

surveys. The results will be referred to throughout this report as they expand the

understanding of each of the issues presented. Parents who responded to this survey

provided additional written comments. Every comment was read and categorized for

this report. The survey responses with the comment responses and the parent focus

groups were the sources of information utilized in Killeen ISD.

Faculty Survey.

Thirty-two questions were included in the survey disseminated to all campus

administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals and support staff in the district on two


Page 9

occasions. Seventy-three (73) surveys from administrators, 460 from general education

teachers, 142 from special education teachers 127 from paraprofessionals, 7 from

speech/language pathologists, 9 from diagnosticians, 21 from Counselor/LSSPs, and 11

from Related Service Personnel, and 62 “other” surveys responses were received. This

survey was disseminated to Killeen ISD staff enabling each staff member to respond to

the statements presented and to provide written responses to the two open-ended

questions. The results of this survey are incorporated throughout the report as an

expansion of the critical issues to be discussed. Table 3 lists the demographics of the

returned faculty surveys.

Table 3. Demographics of Returned Faculty Surveys Number of

Returns Elementary Middle School

High School

Campus Administrators 73 44 17 12 General Education Teachers 460 265 100 95 Special Education Teachers 142 77 27 38 Paraprofessionals 127 82 27 18 Speech/Language Pathologists 7

6

1

0 Diagnosticians 9 7 0 2 Counselor/LSSPs 21 7 7 7 Related Service 11 7 1 3 Other 62 34 0 6 TOTAL 912 529 180 181

Refer to Appendix C for a summary of the results and disaggregated responses of the faculty survey.

Interview Process.

The range of perspectives to be included in an evaluation of services for students with

disabilities made it necessary to conduct individual and small group interviews. At the

central office, the Director of Special Education, the Assistant Director of Special

Education, and the Special Education Leadership Team were interviewed regarding

issues and concerns with special education services. At the time of the campus visits,

the principal interviews were brief in duration yet allowed each evaluator to capture

important campus information and principal issues and concerns.

Throughout the interview process, there was a common commitment to improving

services and collaboration among all stakeholders in the education process.


Page 10

Comparable District Review.

Stetson and Associates, Inc. also conducted a review of enrollment data, staff and

personnel data, turnover rates, student information regarding participation and

performance on the TAKS and SDAA and the budget expenditure information. For the

program evaluation, Killeen ISD data was compared with eleven peer districts. These

districts include Austin, Clear Creek, Conroe, Garland, Humble, Katy, North East,

Northside, Plano, Spring Branch, and Ysleta Independent School Districts. Information

regarding this review is detailed in Theme Four of this report pertaining to staffing

practices for students with disabilities.

The consistency with which the same issues were raised across most, if not all,

stakeholder groups and across all evaluation activities further strengthened this

evaluator’s conviction that the issues presented in this report are highly relevant to the

search for program improvement priorities for the Killeen ISD, in the Department of

Special Education, across all campuses and in the various other organizational entities

that have a role in serving students with disabilities. These central issues are presented

in the following sections of this report.

Central Themes Addressed in the Evaluation Report. Services for students with disabilities in Killeen ISD were evaluated in the context of a

framework for effective practices for students with disabilities rather than a review of

compliance indicators. Appendix A contains a detailed explanation of effective practices

for students with disabilities and is intended as a reference document regarding quality

services for students with disabilities. The following is a brief description of the major

themes that will be the focus of the remainder of this report.

Theme One: A Common Vision for Students with Disabilities A common vision and vocabulary are essential attributes of quality services for students

with disabilities. Without a clear understanding of the district and all of the key

stakeholders’ vision, philosophies and practices will vary widely from school to school. A

shared and common vision is of critical importance for the successful operation of any

organization and for the successful provision of services for students with disabilities.

The vision provides the focus and direction for services to students with disabilities.


Page 11

Described by some experts as a “common caring”, it is this shared and common vision

that will connect those individuals within the school system and bind them to a common

goal.

This section discusses the varying perceptions across Killeen ISD schools and provides

recommendations for strengthening this vital characteristic of effective services. Most

importantly, the recognition that special education is a service and not a place is

essential. In addition, a commitment to a real and meaningful partnership between

general education and special education should result in organizational and operational

adjustments.

Theme Two: Student-Centered Service in the Least Restrictive Environment

The shift from assigning students with disabilities on the basis of their label or location to

services based exclusively on the needs of each student is the focus of Theme Two.

The decision-making process in place in Killeen ISD schools and the cumulative results

of the resulting placement decisions are reviewed. Given the numerous “labeled”

programs in contrast to the inclusive educational practices in Killeen ISD schools, this

section is particularly important to understand the efforts the district has undertaken to

ensure delivery of appropriate services. Recommended actions Killeen ISD will need to

take to complete the evolution from “places” to “services” and to develop practice

consistency from campus to campus and level to level are also discussed in this section.

Theme Three: Quality Instructional Practices for All Learners

With increased attention to improved academic and post-school results for students with

disabilities, the focus has turned to the classroom and to the range and effectiveness of

the instructional strategies and practices selected. In addition, educators have

recognized that the same instructional strategies that are effective for students with

disabilities are also effective for their non-disabled peers. The changing demographics

and learning characteristics of students demand that all teachers differentiate their

instruction – for students with gifts and talents, for at-risk students and for all others in

the classroom. This section of the report addresses the quality of instructional planning,

the participation of students in the general curriculum, the appropriate use of

accommodations and modifications and the range and quality of instructional materials.

Other factors include the extent to which students are successful in their transitions from


Page 12

one classroom to the next and from one level to the next, the use of instructional

technology and the degree to which academic learning time is used effectively. Further,

the participation and performance of students with disabilities within the state

accountability system are addressed in this portion of the report. This section also

reflects the results of an extensive analysis of current practices in selected Killeen ISD

classrooms.

Theme Four: Sufficiency, Efficiency and Appropriateness of Personnel

One of the most challenging tasks in special education is the determination of staffing

needs on a campus and across a district. The type and level of support needs of each

student requiring special education services must be determined on an individual basis.

Schools need a clear and objective process for determining the instructional and related

service needs of each student and for translating these needs into staffing allocations.

The extent to which present staffing for Killeen ISD special education services seems

sufficient will be discussed. The district practices will be compared with state, regional

and eight comparable districts. Special education teachers, appraisal staff,

speech/language pathologists, paraprofessionals and special education administrative

staffing practices will be compared and contrasted.

The largest expenditure in any educational program is for personnel and it is critical to

use these resources in an efficient and appropriate manner. In the case of special

education services, the appropriate use of personnel can carry significant regulatory and

legal implications. This segment of the report addresses the factors that impact

sufficiency, efficiency and appropriateness of staffing practices in Killeen ISD for

services for students with disabilities.

Theme Five: Collaborative Relationships Across Schools, Staff, Students, and Parents Collaborative relationships that engage general and special education teachers in joint

planning and delivery of services are essential to success for students with disabilities.

This segment of the report addresses levels of collaboration between teachers,

paraprofessionals, principals, central office staff and parents. Over the past seven

years, the role of parents in the special education process has greatly strengthened.

With the IDEA 2004, the requirement for parental involvement in this process has moved


Page 13

from participant to partnership. Parents now are to be actively involved in all aspects of

the decision-making process and are considered equal partners in the process. This

section reflects the views of the parents pertaining to their involvement and relationships

with Killeen ISD in providing services for their child.

Organization of this Report

The evaluation of educational services today must be conducted in the context of

practical, research-based practice. To provide the context for this report, refer to

Appendix A for a discussion of nationally recognized effective practices in the delivery of

services to students with disabilities. The “tabbed sections” discuss positive features,

areas of concern and specific recommendations for the five themes. The last section

offers conclusions and over-arching processes for assuring that the recommendations

become changed practice at the district and campus levels.

The support for a careful examination of the current status of services for students with

disabilities and for a long-range plan for continuous improvement exists in the Killeen

schools as evidenced by strong administrative support and involvement in this

evaluation activity. It is hoped that this report will provide a launching point for future

efforts for students with disabilities, their families and the community.

Works Cited

A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families (July 2002).

Commission on Excellence in Special Education. http://www.ed.gov/inits/

commissions boards/whspecialeducation/reports/pcesefinalreport.pdf

Greenbaum, Thomas L. (1998). The Handbook for Focus Group Research. Sage

Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, California.

Krueger, Richard A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.

Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, California.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997). Department of Education.

www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA/

Education Week (Updated 2003). No Child Left Behind.

http;//www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=59


________________________________________________________________ Page 14

Theme One: A Common Vision for Students with Disabilities A shared and common vision is of critical importance for the successful operation of any

organization and for the successful provision of services for students with disabilities.

The vision provides the focus and direction for services to students with disabilities.

Described by some experts as a “common caring”, it is this shared and common vision

that will connect those individuals within the school system and bind them to a common

goal.

A common vision is of significant importance because achievement, accomplishment

and success cannot happen without it. Without a common vision, any initiative, program

or practice will result in a false start, confusion, anxiety and ultimately failure. Superior

leadership, common caring and a strong sense of ownership are key elements for a

common vision.

The request of Killeen ISD to conduct an independent, outside evaluation of the services

for students with disabilities is evidence of a high commitment to provide services for all

students that promote academic success, social and emotional health, strong parental

involvement and partnerships with the community. The district is willing to open the

doors and provide a candid look at what is working and not working for services for

students with disabilities. Campus personnel were open and provided valuable insights

into how services were provided, and the strengths and barriers to continuous

improvement.

Numerous accomplishments were noted throughout the district and on campuses. For

instance, some of the innovative practices that Killeen ISD is recognized for are the

International Baccalaureate Program and the relatively new Annual Visual Arts Show.

Like most districts, Killeen ISD has an Adopt-A-School program. Unlike other districts

that are limited to local businesses, KISD formed a partnership with Ft. Hood Army

installation. Each campus has an Adopt-A-School sign with the name of the military unit

that has adopted the campus and works with the educators to connect with students.

The partnership with Ft. Hood was noted as an important and integral part of the

education process in Killeen ISD. Because Ft. Hood plays a crucial role in preparing


________________________________________________________________ Page 15

troops for duties throughout the world, the army post has a large impact on KISD. While

the base brings a commitment and partnership to education, it is also a factor in the high

mobility rate in the district. In addition to the mobility factor, evaluators noted that

administrators and teachers on each campus were aware of the role they played in

teaching the “whole child”. In addition to the state curriculum, it was observed that

educators in Killeen ISD were sensitive to families being deployed and the special needs

of those students and the parents remaining at home. None of these achievements

would be possible without the commitment and support of the administrators, teachers,

support staff members, parents and community.

Killeen ISD’s mission statement is “Killeen Independent School District will empower all

students with the knowledge and skills essential to embrace a life-long love of learning

and to thrive as responsible citizens creating their own future.” This statement illustrates

the district’s focus on all students and the commitment to educate them and instill in

them the desire for continuous academic growth and attainment of successful

citizenship.

The district’s decision to undertake a formal evaluation of services for students with

disabilities reflects a sincere interest and concern and recognition of a need to address

issues in a systematic manner. This decision also reflects the districts commitment to

ongoing improvement. This chapter will summarize information obtained from

interviews, focus group comments, surveys and observation that pertain to a common

vision and will address four critical components; (a) leadership, (b) common caring (c)

shared ownership, beliefs, equity and expectation and (d) student intervention and

assistance.

Leadership

Quality leadership is essential in promoting and ensuring a common vision. It is the

leader who models the commitment to the vision and mission and fosters and reinforces

the process through clarity, communication and assurance. In focus groups, participants

noted that the district had “eliminated a lot of unrest” and that “positive change” was now

a district goal. Many participants noted that teachers now have the “freedom to try

innovative programs” and teachers received “support from key people to make

changes”.


________________________________________________________________ Page 16

The director of special education possesses a high degree of knowledge and expertise

regarding special education matters. Focus group participants noted that more

professional development had been offered on special education and that some of the

sessions had been joint training sessions. The special education department is to be

commended for implementing a joint training model that facilitates a common vision for

Killeen ISD in serving students with disabilities.

Although positive comments were made about improvements in innovative initiatives and

improved training, there appeared to be confusion over the roles and responsibilities for

special education. In addition, some focus group participants and campus interviewees

noted the lack of consistent information and services for students with disabilities across

the district.

As revealed in the faculty survey, sixty-two percent agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement concerning support for their efforts by central office staff. Twenty-four percent

(23.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that with the statement. Parents however,

tended to feel more support from the central office than did the faculty. Seventy-five

percent of parents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement of support from the

central office in their efforts to educate their child with disabilities. Only fifteen percent of

parents disagreed or strongly disagreed. In both groups, a large percentage marked not

applicable (NA).

Focus group and campus input helped to identify some of the areas that contributed to

the problems with support. There was a consistent theme across all groups regarding

the need for role clarity. Several respondents noted, “We don’t have clearly defined roles

in KISD”, “We don’t have a common vision”.

It was noted that many comments were made regarding the resources of Killeen ISD

and the organizational structure of the central office staff (i.e. coordinators and

facilitators). However, there were many comments questioning the level of knowledge

and preparation of the individuals to provide the necessary guidance and support that

campuses required to meet the needs of students with disabilities and the staff who

serve them. In addition, input across focus groups and during campus interviews

revealed a need for clear and concise procedures. As one respondent described part of


________________________________________________________________ Page 17

the problem, “Placement guidelines are inconsistent and unclear. (It is like) talking to the

IRS”. Some administrators provided insight as to why the problem may be so broad

when they stated there was a lack of skills in the facilitator and coordinator ranks and

that the lack of training for administrators added to the problem. One participant noted

that there were procedures for special education that were in place, but they were a

“nightmare”. Others stated there were “no procedures and guidelines- no book-

everyone isn’t doing (special education) the same”. It is critical for Killeen ISD to develop

a set of clear and concise policies and procedures for special education to provide

guidance to central office and campus administrators, as well as consistency of services

across the district.

The current Director of Special Education has begun to make necessary changes to

provide appropriate services in the least restrictive environments. When a new

administrator takes over a large program, such as special education, there is the

opportunity for additional changes to be implemented that begin the process of

continuous improvement. The change in special education administration, NCLB, the

reauthorized IDEA 2004 and now the projected changes in Texas education will provide

a window of opportunity to make additional improvements with the goal of setting a

common vision across the district in providing quality services for diverse learners.

Campus leadership within the Killeen ISD was noted as supportive of teachers and

parents. Campus administrators appeared to have some degree of knowledge and a

high degree of interest regarding services for students with disabilities, programs and

procedures. Campus leaders also were very interested in identifying needs for

improving the quality of services for students with disabilities. Campus leaders appear

to possess the desire and commitment to improve services for students with disabilities.

Seventy-seven percent (77.4%) of the parents of students with disabilities surveyed

indicated that they feel supported by their child’s principal. The faculty concurred with

77.2% that indicated they felt support by their principal. Some elementary level special

education teachers noted there had been a “change in teachers attitudes, positively,

toward special education”.


________________________________________________________________ Page 18

There appears to be a desire in Killeen ISD to design services for students with

disabilities that are appropriate, effective, and efficient with a common vision among all

stakeholders. According to the evaluation findings, it will be critical for the district to

provide a framework for decision-making through guidelines and training for campus and

central office administrators. In addition, joint training across the district is needed to

provide a common vision of philosophy, roles, responsibilities and strategies for

educating diverse learners.

Focus Group Comments Regarding Communication.

The following table shows the comments provided by focus group participants relative to

this section on Common Vision. The table lists each comment category that emerged

relative to the broad topical area and indicates the specific stakeholder groups in which

each comment was provided.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__ P

age

19

Tabl

e 4.

Fo

cus

Gro

up C

omm

ents

Reg

ardi

ng C

omm

unic

atio

n

Them

e Is

sues

Steering Committee

Superinten. Council

Elem. Principals

Sec. Principals

Diagnosticians

Facilitators

Specialists, Related Srv

SLPs

HS Coordinator

Instructional Specialists

Elem. Gen Ed Ts

Elem. Spec Ed Ts

Sec. Gen Ed Ts

Sec. Spec Ed Ts

Paraprofessionals

Com

mun

icat

ion

Lack

of c

omm

unic

atio

n

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

12

Com

mun

icat

ion

Inco

nsis

tent

com

mun

icat

ion

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

9

Tabl

e 5.

Fo

cus

Gro

up C

omm

ents

Reg

ardi

ng P

roce

dure

s

Them

e Is

sues

Steering Committee

Superinten. Council

Elem. Principals

Sec. Principals

Diagnosticians

Facilitators


SLPs

HS Coordinator


Elem. Gen Ed Ts

Elem. Spec Ed Ts

Sec. Gen Ed Ts

Sec. Spec Ed Ts

Paraprofessionals

Proc

edur

es

Lack

of c

lear

gui

delin

es fo

r sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

10

Proc

edur

es

Diff

icul

t to

obta

in re

ports

and

re

cord

s

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

Proc

edur

es

Pape

rwor

k an

d tim

e in

volv

ed in

sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n re

ferr

als

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

Proc

edur

es

Con

fusi

on re

: rol

e of

di

agno

stic

ians

and

faci

litat

ors

X

X

X

X

X

X

6

Proc

edur

es

Blu

rred

line

s of r

espo

nsib

ility

an

d au

thor

ity b

etw

een

cent

ral

offic

e an

d ca

mpu

s lev

el; f

or

exam

ple,

hiri

ng o

f spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

teac

hers

/par

apro

fess

iona

ls

X

X

X

X

X

5

Proc

edur

es

A g

reat

dea

l of c

ost a

ssoc

iate

s w

ith sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n, la

rge

num

ber o

f sta

ff, y

et st

rong

leve

l of

dis

satis

fact

ion

X

X

X

3

Proc

edur

es

Fear

of l

itiga

tion

ham

pers

goo

d de

cisi

on m

akin

g X

1


________________________________________________________________ Page 20

Common Caring

Teachers, paraprofessionals and other service providers seem to possess the attributes

necessary for a common and shared vision. Eighty-four percent (80.4%) of parents

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they felt a strong sense of

responsibility for all students, including students with disabilities. Parents noted that staff

responds well to phone calls and return calls. Positive comments were made concerning

the new director. Some parents stated they were “happy with Dr. Lovett”. Parents in the

focus group were concerned about a newspaper article in which the superintendent

referred to students served in special education as “those kids are affecting the test

scores”. It was very important to all parents who participated in the evaluation that

children with disabilities be considered full members of the Killeen ISD learning

community.

Focus Group Comments Regarding Attitude toward Special Education.


this section on Common Vision. The table lists each comment category that emerged



Table 6. Focus Group Comments Regarding Attitude toward Special Education

Theme Issue Elementary Principals Diagnosticians Facilitators

Specialists/ Related Services

# Times Cited

Attitude Toward Special

Education

Special educators do not feel respected

X X X 3

Attitude Toward Special

Education

Some students do not feel a sense of belonging

X 1

Shared Ownership

Historically, special education in public school systems is relatively new. With the

advent of the Education for All Handicapped Act in 1975, special education created a

separate delivery system and became committed to maintaining this separate system.


________________________________________________________________ Page 21

Joint collaborative efforts were rare. In the past decade, with the implementation of site-

based decision making and with the increased capacity of educators to successfully

address the needs of diverse learners, the position of special education students has

begun to evolve from excluded members of the school community to included members

of the school and greater community. A common vision requires a high degree of

ownership for all students; that is, all staff feels responsible for all students.

Throughout the observations, interviews, focus groups and survey responses, the issue

of ownership emerged as a factor influencing the quality of services for students with

disabilities. At the campus level, special education is seen as a separate entity and a

place rather than a service for some students with disabilities. There was a belief that

pullout programming was the preferred method of teaching students with disabilities

rather than the general education classroom. There was a common belief that special

educators were responsible for students in special education. This was most obvious on

campus visits when some principals had “the assistant principal in charge of special

education” meet with the evaluator. Shared ownership is a cornerstone of a common

vision.

As noted above, 83.4% of parents believed their child was considered a full member of

the student body, while 84.2% of the faculty agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement. Fifteen percent (15%) of faculty disagreed while only 7.5% of parents

disagreed. Focus group participants did not appear to be as positive about the full

membership position of students with disabilities. Comments that reflected the common

beliefs were “some low incidence kids are in full inclusion but the staff doesn’t know how

to teach in that model”, “some campus administrators are afraid of kids with disabilities”,

“some kids don’t feel that they belong” and “veteran teachers are not willing to change”.

One of the most significant examples of the status of full membership is evident in the

acquisition of general education materials for self-contained classes. There were many

examples across grade levels of the difficulty of obtaining curriculum-based materials for

instruction in special education settings. The references were made to the availability of

state-adopted materials purchased by each district according to student population.

Examples of comments regarding state-adopted materials include:

§ Lack student textbooks


________________________________________________________________ Page 22

§ Never get teacher editions

§ We beg and scrounge to get them

§ We have a lack of being able to get grade-level materials

§ No resources in summer school for middle or high school special education

students

§ Can’t get regular education textbooks at a lower level

§ Have to beg, borrow or steal; we get rejects, out of date, out of adoption

materials

Some administrators note “students did not seem to feel they belonged”. Focus group

statements reveal that secondary general education teachers believed that resource

should be expanded to Science and Social Studies. One teacher stated, “I have 9 kids in

one class that should be in resource”. “How can we expect them to comprehend the 7th

and 8th grade Science and Social Studies concepts?” General education teachers do not

appear to understand the concept of Differentiated Instruction or Multi-level Instruction.

In the faculty survey, thirty-six percent (36.1%) of educators disagreed that general

education students do not suffer when special education students are educated in the

same classroom. This is a significant number of faculty members who do not know

and/or believe the scientifically based research regarding the benefits to all students

from effective instructional practices and inclusive education.

As is the case in most if not all schools in Texas, concern for student performance and

participation in statewide assessment was cited as a source of tension within the district.

It was suggested that referrals to special education sometime reflect the intent to remove

students who are struggling in school from the requirement to participate in the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) administration. Although this was noted in

focus groups, on the survey seventy-four percent of the faculty agreed that the removal

of students from the general education classroom was not encouraged as a means of

enhancing TAKS performance. Principals expressed concern regarding housing a

special education cluster unit fearing the potential impact on the campus Adequately

Yearly Progress (AYP) status. Some noted the “imbalances in the location of programs

have a negative impact on school wide performance”. Administrators and Instructional

Specialists indicated a problem with conflicting information from the district testing

department and the special education department.


________________________________________________________________ Page 23

Many Special education teachers feel ill prepared to assist students to participate in the

TAKS. They are highly concerned that they are accountable yet do not receive the

training the general education teachers are provided concerning the Texas Essential

Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and TAKS preparation. They also cite workload

responsibilities that prevent them from preparing students with disabilities for the

statewide assessment. It was noted in multiple groups and during campus visits that

special education teachers were often pulled out of class for ARDs, meetings and

testing, while special education paraprofessionals were often pulled out to perform non-

instructional duties or substitute in classes when a hired substitute was not available. To

add to this, the special educator was often observed teaching specialized content

instruction by IEP to a set of students, while manning a CMC class with students

interrupting the specialized instruction. This practice is counterproductive to the provision

of quality services and implementing the IEP.

There is a perception that the TAKS exemptions and performance of students with

disabilities in the SDAA is high. A review of the participation, performance and

exemption status for students with disabilities in the Killeen ISD reveals the following:

• The district has a slightly higher percentage of 96.3% of participation of students

with disabilities in the Texas assessment system compared to the Education

Service Center (ESC) Region 12 participation rate of 94.9%, and the state

participation rate of 95.4%;

• The district has a slightly higher participation in the SDAA (5.4%), compared to

state rate of 5.0% and slightly lower participation rate than the ESC Region 12

(6.4%);

• The district’s SDAA participation rate increased from 4.6% to 5.4% from 2003 to

2004;

• The district had a slightly lower ARD exemption rate (1.7%) compared to the

ESC Region 12 rate of 2.8%, and a lower rate than the state rate of 2.1 %; and

• Eighty-six percent of students with disabilities in Killeen ISD met ARD

expectations for mastery, compared to the ESC Region 12 rate of 85%, and the

state rate of 84%.


________________________________________________________________ Page 24

While the vision for services for students with disabilities is not common throughout the

district, there is evidence of practices that support greater ownership for students on

some campuses. Some campuses have become more inclusive in their delivery of

services for students. Some students with disabilities participate in the classrooms with

their non-disabled peers.

Intervention Assistance

The intervention assistance process in Killeen ISD is referred to as the Campus Referral

Committee (CRC) or the Campus Referral Team (CRT). A quality intervention

assistance process is considered highly effective in promoting a common vision and

ownership of all students. In Killeen ISD there was a significant amount of discrepancy

regarding the role of the CRT, however the consensus of participants was that the

process was not effective. It is important to note that the definition of “not effective”

differed among groups. While some participants believed CRT was not effective

because it was a tool used to assist with “getting kids into special education” others

believed it was not effective because it “took too long to get kids into special education”.

At no time was the CRT process described as a resource for general educators to

provide intervention assistance as they worked to meet the needs of struggling learners.

All comments were directed to using the process as a portal one must pass through to

get to special education. Sample comments representing the concerns with the CRT are:

§ Teachers don’t know the identification process

§ CRT often not a database to determine if child has been previously tested

§ Who is in charge of CRT is inconsistent from campus to campus

§ Would like testing to see if they qualify for special education testing

§ If parent request testing it is done, CRT should make decision about testing

§ CRT in November and ARD the end of March; too long

§ CRT says do a few things and come back later; Administrator says “you’ll think of

something”

§ Many have already tried everything and now we lose 60 more days

Intervention assistance should be based upon beliefs that regular classroom teachers

with assistance can help children who are experiencing learning and behavioral

problems and that a team approach can resolve more problems than individuals working

alone. Further, it recognizes that student problems can result from multiple causes and


________________________________________________________________ Page 25

effective engagement in instruction decreases the number of students presenting

behavior problems. Lastly, interventions are most effective when applied early and in

ways that address the needs of more than one student. The intervention assistance

process is a very efficient model and can be stopped whenever a successful outcome is

achieved.

The CRT process in Killeen ISD is not used as a tool for the early identification of

students who may be struggling to succeed but rather as a tool for special education

identification. The process appears to set up adversarial positions between

stakeholders regarding the referral of students to special education. Educators who want

the student referred for special education see the intervention process as a barrier to

special education eligibility. The current CRT process does not encourage teacher

collaboration in solving problems or implement innovative practices and strategies as

interventions. Further, this process contributes to the inefficiency of the formal

appraisal/identification process and the district’s high “do not qualify” (DNQ) rate.

Currently, the DNQ rate for Killeen ISD is 58%. Out of the 45 campuses in KISD, only 1

elementary, 2 middle, and 1 high school had a DNQ rate below 20%. Thirty-one of the

45 campuses had 50% or more of their referrals for special education DNQ. Twelve

campuses had 70% or more of their referrals DNQ. This rate represents a significant

loss to the district in terms of time and resources, as well as another indicator of an

ineffective intervention assistance process. A quality intervention assistance process

serves as a resource for teachers working with struggling learners and a tool to ensure

appropriate referrals for special education.

The major issues of the CRT that warrant further attention when compared to the

effective practice framework involves philosophy and strategies. Intervention assistance

teams and the intervention assistance process is actually a general education function.

One outcome of the intervention assistance team deliberations can be a referral to

special education; however, it is neither the intended outcome nor the typical outcome.

There seems to be a belief that the CRT process is viewed as the path to special

education rather than a process for early interventions for students and teachers.

Participants in every focus group, except the parents, and many campus comments

voiced many concerns regarding the process. They note that it is too easy to refer to


________________________________________________________________ Page 26

special education without prior interventions and are concerned about lack of consistent

procedures. CRT feedback revealed interesting comments, which may be additional

indicators of why the CRT process does not meet the framework of effective practices

for intervention assistance. Examples of CRT feedback are:

§ None scheduled

§ Could stage one

§ Past time for special education referrals

§ Closed for the season

In the faculty survey, 64.4% of the faculty view the CRT process as working effectively

for providing a variety of strategies and agree that the CRT is an effective problem-

solving tool. Twenty-four percent (23.7%) disagreed and 10.5% marked NA. Personal

feedback in focus groups and campus visits were much more negative than the survey

responses. However, the survey responses represent close to 25% of the faculty rating

the CRT as ineffective, with the focus groups and campus input rating the

ineffectiveness higher.

Another important aspect of an intervention assistance team process is that the

membership be static to promote a high degree of collaboration and trust. In other

words, there should be a “core” team of individuals who consistently meet to process

referrals after the teacher has tried other interventions and strategies to resolve the

issue. The “core” team may invite others with certain areas of expertise such as

educational diagnosticians or psychologists but their participation should be in addition

to the CRT rather than membership.

Effective intervention assistance processes also include an evaluation of the process

itself. Teams look at indicators such as numbers of referrals by grade and teacher,

reasons for referrals, outcome of referrals and success of interventions, etc. The team

may also evaluate team member functions and collaboration issues, as well as other

issues that support cohesive teams. This evaluation can identify campus specific or

systemic issues, as well as staff development needs. There is no evidence that this

process evaluation is in practice in Killeen ISD for its CRT.


________________________________________________________________ Page 27

Although a general education process, the CRT is also viewed as a special education

pre-referral process that is an “extra step” that lengthens the special education referral.

General education teachers complain that the process takes too long. Although the

intent of the process is to design interventions to promote student success, there is

pressure to move too swiftly in order to access special education support.

There were several possible explanations for the high percentage of students who do

not qualify. It is reported teachers are not skilled in providing quality interventions nor

have tried many interventions before referring students with diverse learning needs.

Several participants noted, “students are being referred too young” and “administrators

are not ensuring that teachers have tried interventions”. Also noted by the general

education teachers is a concern that the assessment instruments used to determine

academic discrepancy are not aligned with the curriculum and are not reflective of

general curriculum performance. Several secondary general education teachers

questioned the CLASS testing when they said, “The CLASS test stinks. It is not a good

test. It is not administered the same way in each school”. Others simply noted that

special education testing did not include curriculum-based assessment that was aligned

with the TEKS.

A significant finding in the faculty survey concerned the skill of general education

teachers in strategies for addressing the needs of diverse learners. Only sixty-five

percent of the faculty agreed that general education teachers are skilled in strategies for

addressing the needs of diverse learners. Over thirty-four percent of did not agree with

this statement. As with other findings, faculty rated the district more positively than did

the focus groups or campus participants. Each of these stakeholders indicated a lack of

knowledge regarding effective strategies for diverse learners. Campus observations

verified the comments of the focus groups. See detailed explanation in Theme Three:

Effective Instructional Practices.

Focus Group Comments Regarding Staff Development.


this section on Effective Instruction. The table lists each comment category that emerged



An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Pag

e 28

Tabl

e 7.

Fo

cus

Gro

up C

omm

ents

Reg

ardi

ng S

taff

Dev

elop

men

t

Them

e Is

sues

Steering Committee

Superinten. Council

Elem. Principals

Sec. Principals

Diagnosticians

Facilitators


SLPs

HS Coordinator


Elem. Gen Ed Ts

Elem. Spec Ed Ts

Sec. Gen Ed Ts

Sec. Spec Ed Ts

Paraprofessionals

Staf

f D

evel

opm

ent

Nee

d fo

r sta

ff de

velo

pmen

t to

unde

rsta

nd sp

ecia

l ed

ucat

ion

“big

pic

ture

” an

d le

gal i

ssue

s

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

11

Staf

f D

evel

opm

ent

Don

’t kn

ow h

ow to

serv

e stu

dent

s with

com

plex

ne

eds

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

11

Staf

f D

evel

opm

ent

Nee

d ef

fect

ive

inte

rven

tion

strat

egie

s and

fo

r tea

cher

s to

know

how

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

10

Staf

f D

evel

opm

ent

Nee

d to

kee

p ev

eryo

ne in

th

e sy

stem

app

raise

d of

ru

le/la

w c

hang

es

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

Staf

f D

evel

opm

ent

Lack

of t

rain

ing

for

faci

litat

ors a

nd

diag

nosti

cian

s

X

X

X

X

X

5


_______________________________________________________________ Page 29

This finding has significant implications for the CRT process. If many teachers do not

have the skills necessary for addressing the needs of diverse learners, the CRT process

may find it difficult to design interventions to prevent students from experiencing more

difficulty. In addition, teachers may be telling the truth when they said “Many of us have

tried everything else” if they are not equipped with instructional strategies such as

Differentiated Instruction, Multi-level Instruction, Flexible Grouping, Peer Supports,

Cooperative Learning, etc.

In summary, factors related to a common vision that impact the quality of services for

students with disabilities in Killeen ISD are:

• Special education central office administrative support is viewed as attempting to

put changes into place that will improve services for students with disabilities;

• Some special education teachers do not feel valued, respected or properly

trained;

• The Campus Referral Team (CRT) is viewed as an inconsistent process resulting

in high numbers of students who do not qualify for special education services;

• Fifty-eight percent (58%) of students who are referred for special education

services do not meet eligibility requirements;

• There is a high level of concern regarding the accountability system and the

impact of accountability on teacher morale;

• There is a high level of concern regarding the amount of time out of class,

paperwork and overlap of services provided by special education teachers and

paraprofessionals resulting in teacher burnout;

• There are issues of ownership, territory and acceptance of students with

disabilities among the special education and general education teachers;

• At the secondary level some general education teachers are reluctant or

unwilling to work with students with disabilities;

• Both elementary and secondary special education teachers report that the level

of expectation for students with disabilities is lower than for general education

students;

• There is a concern among all stakeholders for those students who do not qualify

for special education services;


_______________________________________________________________ Page 30

• Killeen ISD's special education services operate as a separate or parallel rather

than a unified system. Special education is viewed as place rather than a

service.

What is required to achieve a common vision is an organizational transformation that

views special education in a different light. The vision that emerges must include a

belief that students with disabilities are valued members of the total school community,

their teachers are full members of the various faculties, and their learning and test

performance, post-secondary opportunities and employment successes are as important

for these students as they are for all other students.

Recommendations

1. The district should engage district-level administrators, parents, service providers

and service recipients in formalizing a vision for students with disabilities that

incorporates issues identified throughout this evaluation and through the outcome

statement generated by the evaluation committee.

2. Once the vision is formalized, the district should make the vision a public document

and inform all stakeholders. The vision should be addressed in district publications,

information to the public, brochures and information sharing at meetings, etc.

3. Once the vision is formalized, the district should engage in activities to promote

enrollment in the vision such as:

• Adoption by the board;

• Adoption by the superintendent’s council; and

• Showcasing the vision to team leaders and through meetings with staff.

4. Investigate those areas of grudging compliance or non-compliance to this common

vision and provide information and assistance to those individuals who do not share

the vision, such as:

• Staff development regarding current trends, issues and research-based

practices in educating children with diverse learning needs;

• Training in accommodations and modifications to ensure success for all

learners; and


_______________________________________________________________ Page 31

• Addressing concerns over equity and fairness.

5. Central office and campus leaders must continue to foster the attitude of

acceptance and ownership of all students by formally and frequently expressing the

conviction that commitment to a quality education for all students is “non-

negotiable.”

6. Ask campus teams to review the extent to which students with disabilities are

included as full members of campus life and the extent to which various recognized

strategies for increasing this membership might be implemented on a formal basis.

7. Encourage campuses to consider the multiple ways in which special education

personnel may be incorporated as full members of their faculties, including

membership on grade-level and/or subject area planning teams.

8. Connect best practices for students with disabilities with best practices for all

students, such as multi-level instruction, cooperative learning, activity-based

learning, peer support models and include special and general educators in training

regarding these models of instructional delivery.

9. Revise and refine the CRT model to provide a district-wide consistent format for

individualized student planning. The model needs to focus on an approach to

enable educators to identify alternative options and interventions, to be trained in

the general education classroom and to assure referral for consideration for special

education services only when appropriate. Establish a data collection process for

the purposes of identifying systems issues within the campus and district and to

identify targeted professional development topics to ensure the retooling of faculty

to effectively teach diverse learners who are struggling to succeed.

10. Develop clear and concise operating guidelines for special education. Train central

office and campus stakeholders in the content of the guidelines, the framework for

decision-making as set out in the guidelines, and the use of the guidelines to ensure

the effective delivery of appropriate services for students with disabilities that are

consistent across the district.


Page 32

Theme Two: Student-Centered Service in the Least Restrictive Environment

Student-centered services in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) can be described

by looking at a variety of observable factors relating to how well provided services match

the actual needs of individual students. It also relates to the requirement that, in the

wording of federal law, schools continue to provide services in the LRE. The LRE

provision of the final, draft regulations for IDEA 2004 states:

§300.114 LRE requirements. (a) General. (2) Each public agency must ensure

that— (i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,

including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are

educated with children who are non-disabled; and (ii) Special classes,

separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the

regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the

disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of

supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires IEP teams to use the general

education classroom the student would typically attend as the reference point for

determining what services should look like. In other words, prior to pulling a student out

of the regular classroom, consider supplementary aids and services that can be put into

the general education classroom. Supplemental aides and services typically are

accommodations, modifications and in-class supports such as peer support, support

facilitation and formal co-teaching.

Least Restrictive Environment and Access to the General Curriculum

Within the past ten years, one practice is consistently recognized as necessary to quality

services for students with disabilities. That practice is the provision of in-class support,

i.e., sending special population teachers and/or paraprofessionals into the general

education classroom with special education students to support them in their learning.

With in-class support, special education teachers, paraprofessionals and related

services personnel plan with the general education teacher and provide support ranging


Page 33

from formal co-teaching to working with small groups of students in the general

education classroom. This practice benefits all students and enhances the ability of

teachers to reach the increasing number of diverse learners. While the general

education classroom may not be the appropriate setting for all students with disabilities

all day, it must be considered the first option. With the general education classroom as

the reference point for planning, educational planners must only move beyond the

general education classroom to the extent that it is necessary to meet the needs of the

individual student.

Access to the general curriculum is central to achieving the results desired for students

with disabilities. Historically, most schools offered a dual curriculum system in which

students with disabilities received a separate curriculum. In a dual curriculum system,

the general education classes use state-adopted textbooks and teach the Texas

Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) while in special education classes alternate

textbooks and materials are used that are not related to the state curriculum and it is not

evident that instruction is based on the TEKS. The lack of alignment, between the

materials and instruction in special education classrooms and the TEKS, has a direct

impact on special education statewide TAKS/SDAA/LDAA performance that assesses

TEKS mastery. One KISD principal described the problem this way: “We have a problem

in resource—What curriculum? They’re supposed to be teaching the TEKS”. During the

past five years however, great strides have been made across the United States and in

Texas to ensure students with disabilities access to the same curriculum available to

their non-disabled peers.

It is of significant importance that decisions regarding access and placement are

reached only on the basis of individual student needs. The determination of the service

delivery options for the school district must reflect the individual decisions for each

student rather than a focus on the disability “label” when determining the best placement

for students. When labels dictate placement (typically resource or self-contained

classes), then the required sequence of steps in arriving at appropriate and “legally

defensible” instructional settings has been compromised.


Page 34

Decision-Making Process

Effective practice in determining the LRE for students with disabilities involves a highly

structured collaborative process that is individualized for each student and is the

responsibility of the ARD/IEP Committee. Beginning with general education as the

reference point for planning, the committee addresses three questions following the

determination of the student’s goals and objectives:

1. Where are the opportunities for this student’s objectives to be addressed in the

general education setting?

2. What is the type and level of support the student will need to meet the

objectives? (External, In-class, and Specialized) and

3. Who will provide the support and where will the support be provided?

Once the student’s IEP goals and objectives are developed and opportunities to address

the goals and objectives within the general education setting are determined, the

committee asks the following questions pertaining to curriculum, support and location:

1. Curriculum Decisions

a) Can the student do the activity as is? If the answer is no then…

b) Can the student do the activity with accommodations? If the answer is no

then…

c) Can the student do the activity with modified curriculum and materials?

2. Support Decisions

a) Does the student need personalized support?

3. Location Decisions

a) Can the student perform the activity amongst his/her peers? If the answer

is no, then…

b) Can the student participate in another part of the classroom? If the answer

is no, then…

c) Is there another alternate activity the student could complete in the

classroom? If the answer is no, then…

d) Can the student participate in another location in the school building? If the

answer is no, then…

e) Can the student go to another location in the school district? If the answer

is no, then…


Page 35

f) Does the student need to go to another location outside of the school

district?

Effective practices that support students in integrated settings and access to general

curriculum include universal design and instructional practices such as accommodations

and modifications, multilevel instruction and differentiated instruction. Also, support for

teachers providing instruction is of critical importance to effective access. Teacher

support needs include information, staffing support, materials support and administrative

support.

Issues Emerging from Observations and Data

There is no systematic, consistent, objective process in Killeen ISD pertaining to the

determination of service delivery for students with disabilities based on individual needs.

Service delivery practices vary from campus to campus and the models appear to be

established first, then students are placed in the best option available. Efforts have been

made to reduce and consolidate the number of separate, pullout programs, however the

primary service delivery model for Killeen ISD continues to be pullout, self-contained

services for students with disabilities. In one elementary school, it was noted that the

ESL services used an inclusion model (Westward Elementary). The evaluator observed

the ESL inclusion model while at the elementary school. The model was exemplary as

an inclusion model. ESL students were served in the general education classroom and

the ESL teacher went from room to room to provide services in an inclusive setting.

Students were pulled out for ESL services when and only when the service could not be

provided in the general education setting with support. When asked about the framework

for making decisions concerning in-class support, the teacher noted that he went into

classrooms based on the activities for the day and the support needs for students within

those activities. This meant that the teacher’s schedule changed according to the

instructional activity and the support needs of the student. While ESL students were

served through an inclusion model that was highly effective, students with disabilities on

the same campus were served in pullout, self-contained settings.

The ARD process is viewed as inconsistent and paperwork focused rather than student

focused. One of the common themes of the focus group was the lack of clear and

consistent procedures for making decisions and implementing services. Some of the


Page 36

comments from focus group participants that captured the concerns regarding the ARD

decision-making process were:

§ Problems being notified of and included in ARDs. When scheduling ARDs they

don’t consider when we will be available

§ A lot of new ARD facilitators in the district- some are really good and some are

not

§ When we go to ARD meetings, they check the blocks (modifications) before

we’re there

§ We (general education teachers) get pulled for ARDs for students we don’t have

§ ARD on Modifications may be today and I get the modifications three weeks from

today

There is evidence that placement of students with disabilities is categorical and label–

driven for some students and based upon academic and behavioral criteria for others.

Some placements are based on the available models on the campus. For example, if a

student is assessed and meets eligibility requirements for a learning disability, then

he/she is placed in the resource room for reading/language arts or math. Students with

mental retardation are typically placed in a self-contained class, such as FASP.

Examples of comments from focus groups that represented the perception that decisions

were based on programs rather than student needs were:

§ KISD pigeon holes kids by programs and by ages

§ (KISD has a problem with…) Making programs and fitting kids into them

Campuses that exclusively utilized pullout for students with disabilities cite that there

were too many students with disabilities and too few staff to support the students in less

restrictive settings. There appears to be a lack of understanding regarding inclusion and

service delivery models for students with disabilities. As one teacher stated, “If inclusion

and CMC don’t work then what options are there?”

In addition, the amount of time a student with disabilities is pulled out for specialized

instruction is based on the general education class schedule rather than the amount of

time needed for specialized instruction. During campus visits, teachers reported that

there is a conflict with scheduling pullout times and sometimes the student misses core


Page 37

subjects for the specialized instruction. This practice is seen as counterproductive rather

than complimentary to instruction in the general education setting.

A number of Killeen ISD students with disabilities do not attend their home school;

instead, they are placed in programs at cluster sites on another campus. While this

practice may be cost effective, it is problematic for several reasons. Once placed in a

centralized program, rarely do students exit and return to their home campus. The home

campus typically becomes less involved and no longer considers the student as a

member of the neighborhood school. Clustering of students with more significant

disability conditions creates a disproportionate number of students on the cluster

campus. This can make it more difficult to ensure student participation in the general

education setting. When students are clustered by disability condition, the class can

have a wide age-range of students in one room.

There are a high number of students with mild disabilities in the general education

setting. According to the 2004-05 PEIMS report, 78.9% of students with disabilities

spend more than 50% of their school day in the general education setting. Also 50% of

students with disabilities spend 80% or more in the general education setting. Over 58%

(632 of 1089) of students referred during the 2004-05 school year did not meet eligibility

requirements for special education services, yet the 2004-2005 Performance-Based

Monitoring Analysis System indicated that the district rate of identification for Killeen ISD

was 13.1 compared to a state rate of 8.5. When considering the over-representation of

students qualified for special education services in KISD plus students who were

referred but did not qualify (DNQ), it is important that the district review the intervention

assistance process for general education. The problems with the Campus Referral Team

(CRT) process were verified in the focus groups.

According to focus group participants, the intervention process for struggling learners in

Killeen ISD is limited to special education referral. There were comments across all

focus groups regarding what was not working with the CRT process and no comments

for CRT regarding what was working. The following comments represent the most

common problems of the CRT process:

§ Teachers don’t know who and when to refer to special education

§ There is a lack of intervention to referral


Page 38

§ Special Education is the first option

§ Just go directly to referral

§ When students are referred, all DNQ’s become Other Health Impaired

§ When students have a gap and DNQ, general education teachers get frustrated

§ There is little to no documentation over interventions tried

An intervention assistance process is a research-based practice that provides general

education teachers with a resource to obtain ideas and information to assist struggling

learners within the general education classrooms. In addition, the process enables a

district to ensure referrals to special education are appropriate and to reduce the number

of DNQ’s on a campus (Table 8). When a district or campus has the high DNQ rate that

Killeen campuses have, an important result is lost time for students and staff to obtain

appropriate interventions that impact student progress. The DNQ and over-

representation data reflects the absence or ineffectiveness of an intervention process for

general education. In addition, it is a loss of time and manpower of general and special

educators in the referral, testing, and meeting activities due to the inappropriate referrals

to special education. Sixty-five percent (65.4%) of respondents on the faculty survey

disagreed or strongly disagreed that the pre-referral committee worked effectively for

providing a variety of strategies for promoting student success.

Table 8 Campus Special Education Referrals: August 2004-May 2005

Campus Campus Enrollment # Referrals # DNQs %

DNQ Bellaire Elementary 559 16 10 63 Brookhaven Elementary 688 39 5 13 Cedar Valley Elementary 926 32 21 66 Clarke Elementary 676 21 17 81 Clear Creek Elementary 735 61 39 64 Clifton Park Elementary 434 6 5 83 Duncan Elementary 645 37 14 38 East Ward Elementary 530 60 22 37 Fowler Elementary 346 30 20 67 Harker Heights Elementary 624 27 17 63 Hay Branch Elementary 750 28 16 57 Haynes Elementary 520 23 19 83 Iduma Elementary 749 45 26 58 Ira Cross Elementary 638 29 19 66 Maxdale Elementary 757 18 9 50 Meadows Elementary 600 24 17 71


Page 39

Campus Campus Enrollment # Referrals # DNQs %

DNQ Montague Village Elementary 496 25 10 40 Mountain View Elementary 1003 15 11 73 Nolanville Elementary 701 14 7 50 Oveta Culp Hoobby Elem 680 10 6 60 Peebles Elementary 633 39 27 69 Pershing Park Elementary 732 63 35 56 Reeces Creek Elementary 776 52 36 69 Sugar Loaf Elementary 776 52 36 69 Trimmier Elementary 733 14 10 71 Venable Village Elementary 486 16 12 75 West Ward Elementary 445 47 22 47 Willow Springs Elementary 663 54 47 87 Audie Murphy MS 527 39 12 31 Eastern Hills MS 669 6 1 17 Fairway MS 492 12 6 50 Liberty Hill MS 726 25 15 60 Live Oak Ridge MS 673 11 3 27 Manor MS 717 3 3 100 Nolan MS 712 7 4 57 Palo Alto MS 723 21 18 86 Rancier MS 674 32 17 53 Smith MS 484 13 9 69 Union Grove MS 520 4 0 0 Ellison HS 1888 7 0 0 Harker Heights HS 1952 8 3 38 Killeen HS 1659 3 3 100 Shoemaker HS 1955 12 3 25 MLLC 207 3 1 33 Totals 1089 632 58

The Content Mastery Classes (CMC) are viewed by some teachers as positive features

for special education services. There were three of eighteen comments regarding CMC

services that were positive: one from a secondary general education teacher, one from a

facilitator, and one from an instructional specialist. Students who are in general

education classes may access this service for additional support. For many campuses

Content Mastery is the only support for students with disabilities who are in the general

education setting. Negative comments that represented problems with CMC practices

were:

§ CMC doesn’t work, kids do work by themselves

§ Some campuses have blanket CMC for all special education


Page 40

§ No other service than CMC

§ CMC is mixed with resource

This practice is generally viewed as an inefficient and ineffective delivery model by

campus observers and most of focus group participants. Please review the findings in

Topic Four of this report for a detailed analysis of the Content Mastery services.

Parents expressed positive feelings regarding their child being considered a full member

of the student body in his/her school. Approximately 83.4% agreed or strongly disagreed

that their child was considered a full member of the student body. The response rate for

the parent surveys was good, with 759 surveys returned. The strong response rate

provides reliable input to Killeen ISD administrators for continuous program

improvement. In terms of least restrictive environments (LRE), 87.1% of parents

believed that children benefit when special education and general education students

learn in the same classroom.

Serving students with disabilities in more inclusive settings requires an approach to

instruction that includes accommodations, modifications and the use of an array of

instructional strategies such as activity-based instruction, multi-level instruction and

differentiated instruction. Also, practices such as flexible grouping, utilization of

appropriate materials and resources including technology as well as appropriate

curriculum offerings that meet the needs of the student are critical. Classroom

structures, organization and management of students and utilization of positive behavior

supports and interventions are necessary for effective inclusion of students with

disabilities.

Some of these practices were observed throughout the district; however, the practices

were not consistent in every classroom or at every campus. Some teachers reportedly

have difficulty with implementing accommodations and modifications. It was observed

and reported that often instruction is delivered in a homogeneous manner to a whole

group in a lecture format. This practice does not lend itself to addressing the needs of

diverse learners. It was noted by evaluators at all levels that many students in self-

contained classes appeared appropriate for consideration for placement in general

education classes, including some FASP students.


Page 41

Although the majority of principals expressed a desire for more inclusive practices on

their campuses, results from the faculty survey indicated an educational philosophy that

is counterproductive to successful inclusion. Twenty-nine percent (29.4%) disagreed or

strongly disagreed that students benefited academically when special education and

general education students learned in the same classroom. In addition, over one-third of

educators believed that general education students suffered when special education

students were educated in the same classroom. According to the faculty survey, 36.5%

disagreed or strongly disagreed that general education students would not suffer from

inclusion, while only 61% of the faculty believed general education students would not

suffer. Slightly over 2% marked Not Applicable. According to the faculty survey, 36.5%

agreed or strongly agreed that general education students would suffer from inclusion,

while only 61% of the faculty believed general education students would not suffer.

Slightly over 2% marked Not Applicable.

Focus Group Comments Regarding Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).


this section on Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). The table lists each comment

category that emerged relative to the broad topical area and indicates the specific

stakeholder groups in which each comment was provided.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

P

age

42

Tabl

e 9.

Fo

cus

Gro

up C

omm

ents

Reg

ardi

ng F

ree

and

App

ropr

iate

Pub

lic E

duca

tion

(FA

PE)

Them

e Is

sues

Steering Committee

Superinten. Council

Elem. Principals

Sec. Principals

Diagnosticians

Facilitators


SLPs

HS Coordinator


Elem. Gen Ed Ts

Elem. Spec Ed Ts

Sec. Gen Ed Ts

Sec. Spec Ed Ts

Paraprofessionals

FAPE

N

eed

to p

ut st

uden

t nee

ds

first

, ins

tead

of l

abel

, pla

ce,

or fu

ndin

g X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

FAPE

G

reat

num

ber o

f sep

arat

e pr

ogra

ms

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

FAPE

O

T/PT

Ser

vice

s are

lim

ited

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

FAPE

IE

P’s a

re n

ot a

ligne

d w

ith

the

stat

e of

cur

ricul

um

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

7

FAPE

O

ver-

iden

tific

atio

n of

st

uden

ts fo

r spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

X

X

X

X

X

5

FAPE

A

RD

dec

isio

ns a

re n

ot m

ade

by th

e A

RD

com

mitt

ee

X

X

X

X

4

FAPE

Fo

rce

pare

nts t

o ac

cept

the

serv

ices

that

are

alre

ady

in

plac

e X

X

X

X

4

FAPE

B

iling

ual s

tude

nt n

eeds

are

no

t met

in sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n X

X

X

X

4

FAPE

V

AC

stud

ent p

opul

atio

n an

d LR

E

X

X

2

FAPE

Se

cond

ary

Tran

sitio

n

X

X

2

FAPE

C

redi

bilit

y pr

oble

m w

ith

diag

nost

icia

ns

X

X

2

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

P

age

43

Them

e Is

sues

Steering Committee

Superinten. Council

Elem. Principals

Sec. Principals

Diagnosticians

Facilitators


SLPs

HS Coordinator


Elem. Gen Ed Ts

Elem. Spec Ed Ts

Sec. Gen Ed Ts

Sec. Spec Ed Ts

Paraprofessionals

FAPE

Stud

ents

tend

to st

ay in

sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n, in

re

sour

ce, e

ven

whe

n ne

eds

chan

ge o

r whe

n th

ey c

ould

be

exi

ted

X

X

2

FAPE

N

o sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n se

rvic

es fo

r stu

dent

s in

JAEP

/DA

EP/IS

S

X

X

2

FAPE

Sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n co

unse

ling

not a

vaila

ble

for

all w

ho re

quire

it

X

1

FAPE

D

ysle

xia

stud

ents

are

la

bele

d LD

X

1

FAPE

PP

CD

is o

verc

row

ded

X

1

FAPE

D

ispr

opor

tiona

te

repr

esen

tatio

n of

min

ority

st

uden

ts in

spec

ial e

duca

tion

X

1

FAPE

Des

ire to

“ge

t kid

s out

of

gene

ral e

duca

tion”

with

out

cons

ider

ing

inte

rven

tions

fir

st; j

ust w

ant t

o se

nd th

em

“som

ewhe

re”

X

1


____________________________________________________________Page 44

In summary, factors related to student-centered service delivery involve the following:

• There is no systematic, consistent, objective process in Killeen ISD pertaining to

the determination of service delivery for students with disabilities based on

individual needs.

• A significant number of special education, self-contained classes use a separate

curriculum that is not aligned with the TEKS and thus does not promote

successful transitions into general education environments nor success on the

statewide assessment.

• Placement in special education classes is perceived as a “label-driven” process

with an emphasis on pulling a student out rather than providing needed supports

in the general education classroom.

• A significant number of Killeen ISD students with disabilities do not attend their

home school, rather they are placed in programs at cluster sites on another

campus.

• Some campuses utilize resource pull-out exclusively for students with disabilities,

citing that there are too many students with disabilities and too few staff to

support the students in other less restrictive settings.

• There are a high number of students with mild disabilities in the general

education setting. Supports for these students vary. For most students the only

support is through the content mastery class.

• The amount of time for specialized instruction in self-contained, special education

settings appears to be determined by the general education time per period

rather than individual need.

• Resources are not optimally utilized to promote a student-centered delivery

model.

• The district has a significantly high DNQ rate at each campus.

• The district has an over-representation of students in special education.

• There appears to be no intervention assistance process to ensure appropriate

referrals to special education and a resource to general education teachers with

struggling learners.

• The CMC model is ineffective and inefficient in meeting the support needs of

special education students in general education classes.


____________________________________________________________Page 45

Recommendations

1. Provide specific staff development for campus teams of four to seven members

regarding inclusive educational practices that will cover the following topics as

identified through this evaluation:

• Needs assessment of the participants regarding issues of inclusive

education practices;

• Emerging trends regarding the education of all students;

• Myths and truths concerning inclusive practices;

• Multilevel instruction and differentiated instruction to meet the

needs of diverse learners;

• New models of support for diverse learners (modifications,

accommodations, support facilitation, formal co-teaching);

• Quality indicators of in-class support;

• A step by step approach to staffing and scheduling for students with

diverse learning needs;

• A decision-making process in planning for an individual student;

• Assessing campus practices and selecting future priorities;

• Development of a campus action plan;

• Issues in instructional delivery and assessment (grading, equity and

time for planning and collaboration);

• Peer assistance as an instructional support option; and

• Behavior intervention and positive behavior supports.

As described, the training would take approximately three days to complete. The

first two days would be close in proximity, if possible back-to-back. The third day

would occur after a short interval of approximately one month to six weeks. While

the staff development and training proposed would address almost all of the issues

identified regarding serving students with disabilities in less restrictive settings,

there are other activities that could support the delivery of services and warrant

attention.

2. Using the decision-making process outlined in this section, review and revise the

practice of scheduling students in the resource classrooms for entire blocks of time

for content areas such as reading, language arts and math.


____________________________________________________________Page 46

3. Examine the areas of resistance on each campus through surveys with rating scales

and address each issue through training and support.

4. Explore offering more in-class support such as co-teaching, support facilitation and

formal peer tutoring. Train teachers and administrators in effective models of in-class

support.

5. Develop a district-wide system for intervention assistance. Train faculty,

administrators and campus teams on intervention assistance as a means for support

to teachers with struggling learners, a reduction in inappropriate referrals to special

education and a reduction in the over-representation of students in special

education.

6. Include special education teachers in general education staff development on TEKS,

disaggregation of statewide assessment data and the alignment of special education

practices with state and federal mandates.

7. Align the special education assessment, practices and the curriculum with the Texas

Essential Knowledge and Skills.

8. Leaders must emphasize that the implementation of accommodations and

modifications to ensure student success in the general education setting is expected

and absolutely non-negotiable.

9. Train central and campus level administrators on effective practices of inclusion, a

framework for identifying what is working and not working and the skills to provide

support to general and special education teachers on their campus in educating

diverse learners.


Page 77

Theme Four: Sufficient, Efficient and Appropriate Use of Staff One of the greatest challenges facing special education is the determination of staffing needs

at campus district levels. Unlike general education, special education staffing is not formula

driven. That is, choosing the total number of teachers, paraprofessionals, related service

providers, etc., is not determined by numbers of students divided by a factor alone. Students

with disabilities receive a variety of services in a variety of ways from a variety of staff. Since

special education is a service rather than a place where students are assigned, the decision-

making regarding the number of staff requires a process that is based on the student’s unique

needs.

The type and level of support needed for each student requiring special education services

must be determined on an individual basis. These needs are impacted by numerous

variables. These variables include, but are not limited to:

• The philosophy and beliefs of the teacher and administrator;

• The degree to which the student’s disability impacts independence;

• The degree to which the students’ teachers use a variety of instructional strategies that

provide opportunities for participation and access to the general education classroom;

• The degree to which teachers have the knowledge and skills to work in cooperative

arrangements such as co-teaching, support facilitation and collaborative planning for

students; and

• The ability of the leaders to organize the delivery of services through innovative

scheduling and staffing practices.

Many of these critical factors regarding staffing were addressed by focus group participants

and in staff and parent surveys and were witnessed during the observations made on a variety

of Killeen ISD campuses.

Sufficiency, efficiency and appropriateness of special education staffing also require some

special considerations that may be different from considerations for general education. For

example, what may be considered cost effective and an efficient use of staff may not

necessarily be appropriate. This includes practices such as clustering students at one location

for service or assigning students to a class or location that does not offer opportunities to


Page 78

interact with their non-disabled or age-appropriate peers. Another example concerns the

documented numbers of students referred for formal evaluations who do not meet eligibility

requirements. Inappropriate referrals cause increased caseload for assessment staff.

This section will review the issues of special education staffing and will address the following

questions:

1. Does Killeen ISD have sufficient staff to provide special education services for

students with disabilities?

2. Does the district utilize the special education staff in an efficient manner?

3. Are the staffing practices for students with disabilities appropriate?

Question 1: Sufficiency

Sufficiency refers to the adequate numbers of individuals required to accomplish the provision

of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). To ensure that all students with disabilities

are provided FAPE, districts have employed administrative staff, appraisal staff, related

services and instructional professionals and paraprofessionals for students requiring the

following services: identification, evaluation/re-evaluation, IEP development, instructional

services and related services. Sufficiency is concerned with class size, caseload and

workload of staff.

Although the issue of staffing for students with disabilities is directly related to the provision of

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), class

size and caseload are not covered in federal special education laws. Thus, the authority for

special education staff rests with state and local entities.

In Texas, there are no specific regulations or formulae regarding the determination of class

size and caseloads for students with disabilities. Therefore, the following information was

analyzed to address the question of sufficiency of staff for Killeen ISD:

1. A comparison of data for state, regional and nine similar districts based upon the 2003-

2004 Academic Excellence Information System (AEIS) report provided by the Texas

Education Agency;

2. A comparison of data from state regional and nine similar districts based upon the

2004-2005 Budgeted Financial Data provided by the Texas Education Agency;


Page 79

3. A comparison of data for state, regional and nine similar districts based upon the 2004-

2005 Staffing Salaries and FTE counts and provided by the Texas Education Agency;

4. A review of campus-specific data pertaining to enrollment and staff allotments for

Killeen ISD; and

5. A review of the sufficiency issues identified through focus groups, surveys, interviews

and observations.

AEIS Information for 2003-2004.

A review of state and regional data regarding the student to teacher ratio for students with

disabilities is noted in the following four tables. This information was obtained from the TEA

AEIS report and reflects data for the 2003-2004 school year (see Table 21).

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 80

Tabl

e 21

. Te

xas

Educ

atio

n A

genc

y (T

EA),

Dis

tric

t Aca

dem

ic E

xcel

lenc

e In

dica

tor (

AEI

S) 2

003-

2004

Rep

ort

Entit

y St

uden

ts

Enro

lled

Spec

ial

Educ

atio

n Pe

rcen

tage

Spec

ial

Educ

atio

n Te

ache

rs

Spec

ial

Educ

atio

n Fu

ndin

g

Spec

ial

Educ

atio

n G

radu

ates

*Tea

cher

To

tal

Educ

atio

n Ai

des

Stud

ents

/ Te

ache

r Te

ache

r Tu

rnov

er

Sp E

d St

uden

ts/

Sp E

d Te

ache

r

**G

ener

al

Educ

atio

n Te

ache

rs

Stat

e 4,

311,

502

499,

587

11.6

%

29,7

72

10.3

%

13.3

%

23,6

26

9.9%

28

9,18

7.7

50.4

%

58,4

13.2

10

.2%

14

.9

14.3

%

16.8

20

1,04

3 69

.5%

Reg

ion

12

139,

886

20,5

61

14.7

%

963

9.6%

12

.7%

1,

121

14.0

%

10,0

43.8

48

.7%

26

94.4

13

.1%

13

.9

16.1

21

.3

7,54

7.0

75.1

%

Belto

n 7,

096

1,10

6 15

.6%

56

.6

12.1

%

3.92

2,97

1 15

.7%

53

11

.1%

46

8.2

43.9

%

139.

2 13

.1%

15

.2

11.6

19

.5

339.

9 72

.6%

Cyp

ress

Fa

irban

ks

74,7

30

6,84

1 9.

2%

625.

5 12

.8%

50

,647

,499

16

.6%

36

8 8.

7%

4,88

4.1

51.3

%

801.

1 8.

4%

15.3

11

.9%

10

.9

3,65

2.7

74.8

%

Gal

ena

Park

20

,388

2,

369

11.6

%

117.

9 8.

1%

8,13

3,35

4 10

.2%

11

5 10

.1%

1,

460.

9 53

.3%

13

8.4

5.1%

14

.0

12.5

20

.9

971.

6 66

.5%

Nor

th E

ast

56,0

08

8,44

5 15

.1%

58

2.9

15.9

%

47,5

61,1

98

20.6

%

549

16.1

%

3,67

0.7

51.9

%

633.

3 8.

9%

15.3

11

.9%

14

.5

2,57

0.7

70.0

%

Nor

thsi

de

71,3

07

10,4

27

14.6

%

590.

4 12

.9%

48

,527

,404

17

.8%

47

3 11

.0%

4,

594.

2 46

.5%

1.

024.

5 10

.4%

15

.5

11.6

%

17.6

3,

361.

5 73

.2%

Pasa

dena

46

,002

3,

524

7.7%

22

4.6

8.4%

19

,575

,297

11

.5%

10

8 5.

1%

2,68

0.6

49.9

%

663.

8 12

.4%

17

.2

13.6

15

.7

1,85

1.2

69.1

%

Cop

pera

s C

ove

7,44

4 93

6 12

.6%

59

,7

11.4

%

5,08

1,61

0 16

.0%

39

8.

6%

523.

9 45

.9%

14

9.3

13.1

%

14.2

15

.4

15.7

39

6.2

75.6

%

Tem

ple

8,10

4 13

17

16.3

%

60.8

9.

8%

4,66

9,08

9 13

.8%

64

13

.1%

61

8.8

47.9

%

150.

8 11

.7%

13

.1

20.7

21

.7

428.

8 69

.3%

Wac

o 15

,591

2,

132

13.7

%

107.

4 10

.3%

7,

182,

594

12.3

%

123

16.8

%

1,04

1.0

49.3

20

5.8

9.8%

15

.0

17.9

%

19.8

75

7.5

72.8

%

Kill

een

32,5

21

4,30

8 13

.2%

22

9.7

10.0

%

16,3

58,1

01

12.0

%

156

12.0

%

2,30

2.9

47.6

%

743.

2 15

.4%

14

.1

13.6

18

.8

1,60

5.5

69.7

%

Aver

age

17

.4

*

P

erce

ntag

e of

Tot

al S

taff

that

are

Tea

cher

s **

P

erce

ntag

e of

Reg

ular

Edu

catio

n Te

ache

rs to

Tea

cher

s


Page 81

Table 22. State, Regional and Killeen ISD Special Education Students to Special Education Teacher Ratios

Entity Special Education Teachers

Special Education Students

Special Education Student/Teacher Ratio

Texas 29,772 499,587 16.8 Region 12 963 20,561 21.3 Killeen ISD 229.7 4308 18.8

As illustrated in Table 22, Killeen ISD’s student to teacher ratio for special education is

somewhat higher than the state average and is lower than the regional averages.

The 2003-2004 AEIS review of nine districts of comparable size reveals the following

information regarding special education staff and special education student to teacher ratio.

Table 23. Comparable Districts’ Special Education Student to Teacher Ratios

District Special Education Students

Special Education Teachers

Student/Teacher Ratio

Belton 1106 56.6 19.5 Copperas Cove 936 59.7 15.7 Cypress-Fairbanks 6841 625.5 10.9 Galena Park 2369 117.9 20.9 North East 8445 582.9 14.5 Northside 10,427 590.4 17.6 Pasadena 3524 224.6 15.7 Temple 1317 60.8 21.7 Waco 2132 107.4 19.8 Killeen 4308 229.7 18.8 Average of 9 comparable districts

17.4

Killeen ISD’s special education student to teacher ratio is higher than the state, lower than the

region and higher than the average of the comparable districts. If Killeen were to staff at the

same level as the average of the nine comparable districts there would be 247.6 special

education teachers for an increase of 17.9.


Page 82

Approximately 20% of students with disabilities have speech impairment and typically receive

services only from a SLP. Thus, if the numbers of students who only receive speech therapy

services are excluded from the special education student counts in Table 24, the following

special education student to teacher ratios are noted, based upon the 2003-2004 AEIS

information.

Table 24. Comparable Districts’ Special Education Student to Teacher Ratios Excluding Speech Only Students

The average student to teacher ratio of the nine comparable districts is 13.8 excluding

students whose only special education service is speech language therapy. Hereafter these

students will be referred to as “speech only” students. As Table 24 reveals, Killeen ISD has a

higher student/teacher ratio than four of the comparable districts and the same ratio as the

average.

Entity/District

Special Education Students (minus students who receive only Speech Therapy services)


Student/Teacher Ratio

State 399,669.6 29772 13.4

Region 12 16,448.8 963 17.0

Belton 884.8 56.6 15.6 Copperas Cove 748.8 59.7 12.5 Cypress-Fairbanks 5473 625.5 8.7 Galena Park 1895.2 117.9 16.0

North East 6756 582.9 11.6

Northside 8342 590.4 14.1

Pasadena 2819.2 224.6 12.5

Temple 1080.6 60.8 17.7 Waco 1705.6 107.4 15.9

Killeen 4184 302.8 13.8 Average for 9 Selected Districts 13.8


Page 83

Texas Education Agency Data.

A review of information obtained from the 2004-2005 Budgeted and Financial Data

Reports and from the Staff Salaries and FTE Counts compiled by the Texas Education

Agency notes the following:

Table 25. 2004-05 Budget and Financial Data Comparisons Entity

Budget Regular Education

Budget Special Education

Per Student Regular Education

Per Student Special Education

State 13,792,394,305 69.29%

3,092,500,516 14.64%

3246 705

Belton

20,830,062 64.51%

4,925,333 15.25%

2919 690

Copperas Cove 25,364,632 64.73%

6,806,431 17.37%

3456 927

Cypress-Fairbanks 261,100,914 71.14%

55,720,725 15.18%

3297 701

Galena Park 74,580,593 72.85%

11,617,930 11.35%

3599 561

North East 213,434,042 68.42%

65,438,988 20.98%

3727 1143

Northside 251,904,060 67.70%

73,991,407 19.89

3404 1000

Pasadena 62,132,331 27.61%

27,115,190 12.05%

1313 573

Temple 27,626,369 72.62%

4,950,232 13.01%

3409 611

Waco 46,003,508 63.18%

8,577,875 11.78%

2965 553

Killeen 144,843,834 66.04%

39,155,857 17.58%

3130 846

Average of 9 selected districts

15.20% 751

Killeen ISD special education budget is higher than the average of the nine comparable

districts and higher than seven of the comparable districts. KISD’s special education per pupil

budget is higher than the nearby districts (Waco, Temple, Belton) and lower than Copperas

Cove.


Page 84

2004-2005 Comparable District Study.

The following data tables and discussions are provided as another method of determining the

extent to which Killeen ISD has provided sufficient and reasonable levels of resources to meet

the educational needs of students with disabilities. This method compares the level of staffing

provided by Killeen ISD to the levels provided by other comparable Texas school districts.

The following districts provided staffing and enrollment data for the 2004-05 school year:

1. Austin,

2. Clear Creek,

3. Conroe,

4. Garland,

5. Humble,

6. Katy,

7. North East

8. Plano,

9. Spring Branch, and

10. Ysleta.

The comparisons reflect the number of various categories of personnel provided compared to

the number of special education students served by that category of personnel.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 85

The

first

mea

sure

of r

esou

rces

pro

vide

d co

mpa

res

the

tota

l num

ber o

f spe

cial

edu

catio

n te

ache

rs, i

nclu

ding

SLP

s, to

the

tota

l num

ber

of s

peci

al e

duca

tion

stud

ents

ser

ved,

incl

udin

g “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts.

The

term

“tea

cher

” inc

lude

s pe

rson

nel r

epor

ted

as te

ache

rs,

hom

ebou

nd te

ache

rs, v

isua

lly im

paire

d (V

I) te

ache

rs, o

rient

atio

n an

d m

obili

ty (O

&M

) ins

truct

ors,

voc

atio

nal a

djus

tmen

t coo

rdin

ator

s (V

AC

s), S

LPs

and

AP

E te

ache

rs.

Ta

ble

26.

Com

para

ble

Dis

tric

ts’ T

otal

Num

ber o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n St

uden

ts S

erve

d to

Tot

al N

umbe

r of S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Teac

hers

, In

clud

ing

Spee

ch O

nly

A

ustin

C

lear

C

reek

Con

roe

Gar

land

H

umbl

e K

aty

Pla

no

Spr

ing

Bra

nch

Nor

th

Eas

t

Ysl

eta

Kill

een

Ave

rage

of

10

Com

para

ble

dist

ricts

S

peci

al e

duca

tion

teac

hers

(in

clud

ing

SLP

s)

822.

5 24

5 40

2.5

467

276.

2 39

9 63

8 30

6.7

689.

5 37

2.2

304.

25

Spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

Stu

dent

s

(incl

udin

g “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

1009

4 31

83

4000

59

97

2770

41

70

6185

36

55

8507

53

78

4685

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts

per t

each

er

12.3

12

.9

9.9

12.8

10

.0

10.4

9.

7 11

.9

12.3

14

.4

15.4

11

.7

If K

illee

n IS

D’s

spe

cial

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m w

ere

staf

fed

at th

e sa

me

leve

l as

the

aver

age

of th

e te

n co

mpa

rabl

e di

stric

ts, t

here

wou

ld b

e 40

0.4

spec

ial e

duca

tion

teac

hers

em

ploy

ed to

ser

ve th

e sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n st

uden

ts (i

nclu

ding

“spe

ech

only

” stu

dent

s) fo

r an

incr

ease

of

96.2

teac

hers

.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 86

The

seco

nd m

easu

re o

f res

ourc

es p

rovi

ded

com

pare

s th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of s

peci

al e

duca

tion

teac

hers

, exc

ludi

ng S

LPs,

to th

e to

tal

num

ber o

f spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts, e

xclu

ding

the

“spe

ech

only

” stu

dent

s.

Tabl

e 27

. C

ompa

rabl

e D

istr

icts

’ Tot

al N

umbe

r of S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Stud

ents

Ser

ved,

Exc

ludi

ng S

peec

h O

nly

Stud

ents

to T

otal

Num

ber

of S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Teac

hers

Exc

ludi

ng S

LPs

A

ustin

C

lear

C

reek

C

onro

e G

arla

nd

Hum

ble

Kat

y P

lano

S

prin

g B

ranc

h N

orth

E

ast

Ysl

eta

Kill

een

Ave

rage

of 1

0 C

ompa

rabl

e D

istri

cts

Spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

teac

hers

(e

xclu

ding

S

LPs)

755

200

358.

5 39

5 23

7 33

8.5

488

271.

5 61

0.5

325

287.

25

Spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

(e

xclu

ding

“s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

9032

24

20

2944

51

74

2185

32

20

5289

28

56

6665

44

15

3883

Spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

pe

r tea

cher

ex

clud

ing

“spe

ech

on

ly”

11.9

12

.1

8.2

13.0

9.

2 9.

5 10

.8

10.5

10

.9

13.6

13

.5

11.0

If K

illee

n IS

D w

ere

to s

taff

at th

e sa

me

leve

l as

the

aver

age

of c

ompa

rabl

e di

stric

ts th

ere

wou

ld b

e 35

3 te

ache

rs e

mpl

oyed

to s

erve

the

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

(exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

for a

n in

crea

se o

f 65.

75 te

ache

rs.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 87

The

third

mea

sure

of r

esou

rces

pro

vide

d co

mpa

res

the

tota

l num

ber o

f spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

para

prof

essi

onal

s se

rved

by

the

prog

ram

, exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts.

Ta

ble

28.

Com

para

ble

Dis

tric

ts’ T

otal

Num

ber o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n St

uden

ts S

erve

d to

Tot

al N

umbe

r of S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Para

prof

essi

onal

s Ex

clud

ing

Spee

ch O

nly

Aus

tin

Cle

ar

Cre

ek

Con

roe

Gar

land

H

umbl

e K

aty

Pla

no

Spr

ing

Bra

nch

Nor

th

Eas

t Y

slet

a K

illee

n A

vera

ge o

f 10

Com

para

ble

Dis

trict

s S

peci

al e

duca

tion

para

prof

essi

onal

s 58

3.5

152

258.

5 29

3 14

2 33

7.5

366

198

513

234

299

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts

(exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

9032

24

20

2944

51

74

2185

32

20

5289

28

56

6665

44

15

3883

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts

per p

arap

rofe

ssio

nal

(exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly”

15.5

15

.9

11.4

17

.6

15.4

9.

5 14

.5

14.4

12

.9

18.8

13

.0

14.6

If K

illee

n IS

D w

ere

to s

taff

at th

e sa

me

leve

l as

the

aver

age

of c

ompa

rabl

e di

stric

ts, t

here

wou

ld b

e 26

5 pa

rapr

ofes

sion

als

empl

oyed

to

serv

e th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s (e

xclu

ding

“spe

ech

only

” stu

dent

s) fo

r a d

ecre

ase

of 3

3.1

para

prof

essi

onal

s.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 88

The

four

th m

easu

re o

f res

ourc

es p

rovi

ded

com

pare

s th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of e

duca

tiona

l dia

gnos

ticia

ns to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

ser

ved,

exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts.

Ta

ble

29.

Com

para

ble

Dis

tric

ts’ T

otal

Num

ber o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n St

uden

ts S

erve

d Ex

clud

ing

Spee

ch O

nly

Stud

ents

To

Tot

al N

umbe

r of A

ppra

isal

sta

ff

Aus

tin

Cle

ar

Cre

ek

Con

roe

Gar

land

H

umbl

e K

aty

Pla

no

Spr

ing

Bra

nch

Nor

th

Eas

t Y

slet

a K

illee

n A

vera

ge o

f 10

Com

para

ble

Dis

trict

s S

peci

al e

duca

tion

diag

nost

icia

ns a

nd

LSS

Ps

53.3

5 32

54

50

.5

41.4

62

.8

40

51.1

42

40

.5

20

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts

(exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

9032

24

20

2944

51

74

2185

32

20

5289

28

56

6665

44

15

3883

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n S

tude

nts

(exc

ludi

ng

“spe

ech

only

”) p

er

appr

aisa

l sta

ff

169.

3 75

.6

54.5

10

2.4

52.8

51

.3

132.

2 55

.9

158,

7 10

9 19

4.15

96

.1

The

dist

rict h

as a

sig

nific

antly

hig

her a

vera

ge th

an a

ll of

the

com

para

ble

dist

ricts

. If

Kill

een

ISD

wer

e to

sta

ff at

the

sam

e le

vel a

s th

e av

erag

e of

the

com

para

ble

dist

ricts

, the

re w

ould

be

a to

tal o

f 40.

4 ap

prai

sal s

taff

empl

oyed

to s

erve

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s (e

xclu

ding

“s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

for a

n in

crea

se o

f 20.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 89

The

fifth

mea

sure

of r

esou

rces

pro

vide

d co

mpa

res

the

tota

l num

ber o

f SLP

s to

the

tota

l num

ber o

f stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

spee

ch/la

ngua

ge

ther

apy

only

. Th

ere

is a

lmos

t cer

tain

ly a

wid

e ra

nge

in th

e am

ount

and

type

of t

hera

py s

ervi

ces

need

ed b

y th

e st

uden

ts w

ithin

the

popu

latio

ns c

ited

and

no in

form

atio

n w

as a

vaila

ble

rega

rdin

g an

y “w

eigh

ting”

. Fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

this

stu

dy, a

ll st

uden

ts s

erve

d by

a

SLP

are

con

side

red

to re

ceiv

e th

e sa

me

leve

l of s

ervi

ce.

Tabl

e 30

. C

ompa

rabl

e D

istr

icts

’ Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s w

ith S

peec

h as

a P

rimar

y C

ondi

tion

to T

otal

Num

ber o

f SLP

s

Aus

tin

Cle

ar

Cre

ek

Con

roe

Gar

land

H

umbl

e K

aty

Pla

no

Spr

ing

Bra

nch

Nor

th

Eas

t Y

slet

a K

illee

n A

vera

ge o

f 10

Com

para

ble

Dis

trict

s To

tal n

umbe

r of

Spe

ech/

La

ngua

ge

Pat

holo

gist

s

67.5

45

43

.7

74

39.2

60

.5

107

35.2

79

47

.2

17

Stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

“spe

ech

only

’ ser

vice

s

1062

76

3 10

56

823

585

950

896

799

1842

96

3 80

2

“Spe

ech

only

” st

uden

ts

per S

LPl s

taff

15.7

17

24

.2

11.1

14

.9

15.7

8.

4 22

.7

23.3

20

.4

47.2

15

.3

Thes

e fig

ures

mus

t be

view

ed w

ith c

autio

n, a

s th

ey d

o no

t ref

lect

the

tota

l num

ber o

f stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

ceiv

ing

spee

ch a

nd

lang

uage

ther

apy.

How

ever

, it i

s of

sig

nific

ance

to n

ote

that

whe

n co

mpa

rabl

e di

stric

t rat

ios

of “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts

to S

LP a

re

com

pare

d, th

e K

illee

n IS

D n

umbe

rs a

re s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r tha

n th

e av

erag

e.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 90

The

seve

nth

mea

sure

of r

esou

rces

pro

vide

d co

mpa

res

the

tota

l num

ber o

f spe

cial

edu

catio

n in

stru

ctio

nal c

oord

inat

ors

to th

e to

tal

num

ber o

f spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts s

erve

d, in

clud

ing

“spe

ech

only

” stu

dent

s.

Tabl

e 31

. C

ompa

rabl

e D

istr

icts

’ Tot

al N

umbe

r of S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Stud

ents

Ser

ved

Incl

udin

g Sp

eech

Onl

y St

uden

ts to

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

Inst

ruct

iona

l Coo

rdin

ator

s

Aus

tin

Cle

ar

Cre

ek

Con

roe

Gar

land

H

umbl

e K

aty

Pla

no

Spr

ing

Bra

nch

Nor

th

Eas

t Y

slet

a K

illee

n A

vera

ge o

f 10

Com

para

ble

Dis

trict

s To

tal n

umbe

r of

spec

ial e

duca

tion

coor

dina

tors

25

2 4

4 4

10

7 8.

5 14

.5

5 5*

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts

(incl

udin

g “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

1009

4 31

83

4000

59

97

2770

41

70

6185

36

55

8507

53

78

4685

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n s

tude

nts

per c

oord

inat

or

403.

8 15

91.5

10

00

1499

,3

692.

4 41

7 88

3.6

430

586.

7 10

75.6

93

7 85

8

*Dis

trict

repo

rts n

otes

one

coo

rdin

ator

pos

ition

as

vaca

nt

If K

illee

n IS

D w

ere

to s

taff

at th

e sa

me

leve

l as

the

aver

age

of th

e co

mpa

rabl

e di

stric

ts, t

here

wou

ld b

e a

tota

l of 5

.5 s

peci

al e

duca

tion

inst

ruct

iona

l coo

rdin

ator

s em

ploy

ed to

ser

ve th

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s (in

clud

ing

“spe

ech

only

” stu

dent

s) fo

r an

incr

ease

of .

5 sp

ecia

l ed

ucat

ion

inst

ruct

iona

l coo

rdin

ator

s. T

he a

ctua

l ave

rage

for K

illee

n is

117

1.5

whe

n th

e va

canc

y is

not

take

n in

to c

onsi

dera

tion.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 91

The

eigh

th m

easu

re o

f res

ourc

es p

rovi

ded

com

pare

s th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of s

peci

al e

duca

tion

inst

ruct

iona

l coo

rdin

ator

s to

the

tota

l num

ber

of s

peci

al e

duca

tion

stud

ents

ser

ved,

exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts.

Ta

ble

32.

Com

para

ble

Dis

tric

ts’ T

otal

Num

ber o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n In

stru

ctio

nal C

oord

inat

ors

to T

otal

Num

ber o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n St

uden

ts S

erve

d Ex

clud

ing

Spee

ch O

nly

Stud

ents

Aus

tin

Cle

ar

Cre

ek

Con

roe

Gar

land

H

umbl

e K

aty

Pla

no

Spr

ing

Bra

nch

Nor

th

Eas

t Y

slet

a K

illee

n A

vera

ge o

f 10

Com

para

ble

Dis

trict

s To

tal n

umbe

r of

spec

ial e

duca

tion

coor

dina

tors

25

2 4

4 4

10

7 8.

5 14

.5

5 5

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n st

uden

ts

(exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

9032

24

20

2944

51

74

2185

32

20

5289

28

56

6665

44

15

3883

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n s

tude

nts

(exc

ludi

ng

“spe

ech

only

” per

co

ordi

nato

r

361.

3 12

10

736

1293

.5

546.

2 32

2 75

5.6

336

459.

6 88

3 77

6.6

690.

3

If K

illee

n IS

D w

ere

to s

taff

at th

e sa

me

leve

l as

the

aver

age

of th

e co

mpa

rabl

e di

stric

ts, t

here

wou

ld b

e a

tota

l of 5

.6 s

peci

al e

duca

tion

inst

ruct

iona

l coo

rdin

ator

s em

ploy

ed to

ser

ve s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

(exc

ludi

ng “s

peec

h on

ly” s

tude

nts)

for a

n in

crea

se o

f .6

spec

ial

educ

atio

n in

stru

ctio

nal c

oord

inat

ors.

An

Eva

luat

ion

of S

ervi

ces

for S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

Kill

een

Inde

pend

ent S

choo

l Dis

trict

Pag

e 92

The

nint

h m

easu

re o

f ade

quac

y of

reso

urce

s pr

ovid

ed c

ompa

res

the

num

ber o

f spe

cial

edu

catio

n in

stru

ctio

nal c

oord

inat

ors

to th

e to

tal

num

ber o

f spe

cial

edu

catio

n te

ache

rs, i

nclu

ding

SLP

s.

Tabl

e 33

. C

ompa

rabl

e D

istr

icts

’ Tot

al N

umbe

r of S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Teac

hers

to T

otal

Num

ber o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n C

oord

inat

ors

A

ustin

C

lear

C

reek

C

onro

e G

arla

nd

Hum

ble

Kat

y P

lano

S

prin

g B

ranc

h N

orth

E

ast

Ysl

eta

Kill

een

Ave

rage

of 1

0 C

ompa

rabl

e D

istri

cts

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n co

ordi

nato

rs

25

2 4

4 4

10

7 8.

5 14

.5

5 5

Spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

teac

hers

in

clud

ing

SLP

s

822.

5 24

5 40

2.5

467

276.

2 39

9 63

8 30

6.7

689.

5 37

2.2

304.

25

Spe

cial

edu

catio

n te

ache

rs

(incl

udin

g S

LPs)

pe

r coo

rdin

ator

st

aff

32.9

12

2.5

100.

6 11

6.7

79

40

91.1

36

.1

47.5

74

.4

60.8

74

If K

illee

n IS

D w

ere

to s

taff

at th

e sa

me

leve

l as

the

aver

age

of th

e co

mpa

rabl

e di

stric

ts, t

here

wou

ld b

e a

tota

l of 4

.1 s

peci

al e

duca

tion

coor

dina

tors

em

ploy

ed to

ser

ve te

ache

rs a

nd S

LPs

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

for a

dec

reas

e of

.9 s

peci

al e

duca

tion

inst

ruct

iona

l co

ordi

nato

rs.

Evaluation of Services for Students with Disabilities Killeen Independent School District

Page 93

Campus-Specific Data 2004-05 School Year.

The following tables reflect enrollment and campus assigned teaching and paraprofessional

staff for high school, middle schools and elementary schools.

Table 34. High Schools Special Education Enrollment and Student to Staff Ratios High School Campus

Special Education Enrollment

Teachers*

Aide I

Aide II

Special Education Students/Teacher

Special Education Students/Adult

Ellison 308 16 6 12 19.25 9.0

Harker

Heights

268 17 6 14 15.76 7.2

Killeen 286 18 7 12 15.9 7.7

Shoemaker 257 15 4 9 17.1 9.1

Totals 1119 66 23 47 16.9 8.2

* Includes one campus coordinator position for each campus

Table 35. Middle Schools Special Education Enrollment and Student to Staff Ratios Middle School Campus



Aide I

Aide II


Special Education Students/Adult

Audie Murphy

83 4 2 2 20.7 10.4

Eastern Hills

101 7 3 2 14.4 8.4

Fairway 85 6 2 4 14.2 7.1

Liberty Hills

122 5 4 2 24.4 11.0

Live Oak Ridge

110 7 2 11 15.7 5.5

Manor 107 6 2 5 17.8 8.2

Nolan 123 6 2 4 20.5 10.25

Palo Alto 112 6 2 4 18.7 9.3

Rancier 121 6 2 4 20.2 10.1

Smith 84 5 2 3 16.8 8.4

Union Grove

61 4 2 2 15.25 7.6

Total 1109 62 25 43 17.9 8.5


Page 94

Table 36. Elementary Schools Special Education Enrollment and Student to Staff Ratios Elementary School Campus


Teachers Aide I

Aide II


Special Education Students/Adults

Bellaire 79 4 2 5 19.7 11.3 Brookhaven 68 4 2 0 17 11.3 Cedar Valley 124 3 3 0 41.3 20.6 Clark 68 3 2 0 22.6 13.6 Clear Creek 91 3 3 0 30.3 15.1 Clifton Park 46 1 1 0 46 23 Duncan 64 2 2 1 32 12.8 East Ward 102 6 3 6 17.0 6.8 Fowler 53 3 1 2 17.6 8.8 Harker Heights

90 3 2 0 30.0 18.0

Hay Branch 111 5 2 6 22.2 8.5 Haynes 112 8 1 12 14 5.3 Iduma 97 5 2 4 19.4 8.8 Ira Cross 46 2 2 0 23 11.5 Maxdale 96 5 2 7 19.2 6.8 Meadows 66 3 2 3 22 8.2 Montague 97 6 3 6 16.2 6.4 Mountain View

76 3 4 0 25.3 10.8

Nolanville 112 5 2 5 22.4 9.3 Oveta 83 3 2 2 27.6 11.8 Peebles 100 3 2 2 33.3 14.3 Pershing 112 5 3 0 22.4 14 Reeces 137 6 3 2 22.8 12.5 Sugar Loaf 71 2 2 0 35.5 17.7 Trimmier 104 6 2 9 17.3 6.1 Venable 69 4 2 4 17.25 6.9 West Ward 70 3 1 0 17.5 14 Willow Springs

70 4 2 4 14 7.0

Totals 2414 110 60 80 21.9 9.6

The tables and comparison data from the past two years reveal several areas that are

significant regarding the numbers of staff for students with disabilities in Killeen ISD.

Specifically, the data alone reveals the following:


Page 95

• The special education enrollment in Killeen ISD is slightly higher than the state average,

slightly lower than the regional percentages and is higher than four of the nine

comparable school districts;

• The percentage of special education teachers in the district is lower than the state

percentage, slightly higher than the regional percentages and lower than six of the nine

comparable districts;

• The special education budget expenditure for Killeen ISD is lower than the state and

region percentage and lower than seven of the nine comparable districts;

• There is a higher teacher turnover rate for Killeen ISD when compared to the state and a

lower rate when compared with the region and four of the nine comparable districts;

• The special education student to special education teacher ratio is higher than the state,

lower than the regional ratios and higher than four of the nine comparable districts;

• For the 2004-2005 year, the student to teacher ratio is higher than the average of the


• The range of caseloads for appraisal staff among the ten comparable districts varies

from a lowest number of 53.8 to the highest number of 194.1. The district’s average

caseload for diagnosticians is significantly higher than the average of comparable

districts and is higher than all of the comparable districts.

• When students with disabilities who are “speech only” are excluded from the overall

special education count, the student to teacher ratio for Killeen ISD is significantly higher

than all of the comparable districts.

• The average caseload of SLPs for students who are speech only is significantly higher

than the average of the comparable districts.

• Killeen ISD’s student to paraprofessional ratio is lower than the average of the


• The average number of Killeen ISD students with disabilities per special education

coordinator is 937. This is higher than the average of the comparable districts and

higher than six of the ten districts. There was a wide range among districts.

• Killeen ISD’s special education teacher to special education coordinator average is lower

than the average of the comparable districts.

• Actual campus enrollment data for the 2004-05 school year reveals a significantly high

campus staff to student ratio on some campuses. There is a wide range (5.3-23.0) of


Page 96

special education students to staff at the elementary level. The special education

students per special education teachers ranges from a low of 14 on one campus to a

high of 46 on another.

The comparable data from the 2003-04 and 2004-05 years would suggest that Killeen ISD might

not have adequate numbers of teachers for students with disabilities for some areas, especially

at the elementary level. This is further supported through focus group survey comments, as

well as the campus visit observations. More specifically the observed class size for the special

education classes (Resource, FASP, PBS) seemed adequate in most cases yet staffing for the

provision of support for students with disabilities within the general education classroom

seemed inadequate. It appears that the district has supplemented staff of the campuses

through the addition of paraprofessionals.

While the observed class size for most special education pull-out classes appears adequate the

significant variance in the comparison district, region and state data and Killeen ISD special

education student to staff ratio suggests insufficient numbers of teachers. There are large

numbers of students with disabilities in the general education classroom that do not receive in-

class support. Currently 78.9% of students with disabilities spend more than 50% of their

school day in the general education setting. Also 50% of students with disabilities spend 80%

or more of their school day in the general education setting. With the increased emphasis on

access to the general curriculum and the increased focus on increasing the participation and

performance of students with disabilities in the statewide assessment the provision of support

from peers and/or adults in the classroom for these students in the general education settings

is warranted.

There were at least 29 of 762 separate comments provided by the faculty survey pertaining to

staffing needs. These comments addressed a need for additional support for students receiving

services in some resource rooms, additional support for students with disabilities in the general

education classroom and a need for more diagnosticians, speech/language pathologists and

related services staff. Roughly 47 parents indicated in their survey responses, issues with

staffing sufficiency, efficiency, and appropriateness in addition to a need for more teachers and

a need to reduce the caseloads of special education staff.


Page 97

The data suggests insufficient appraisal staff. Concerns regarding the workload and caseload

for the educational diagnosticians were frequently mentioned by focus group participants and

noted in the interviews and faculty survey comments. Killeen ISD diagnostic caseload is twice

the average caseload of the ten comparable districts. These numbers however must also be

considered within the context of the diagnostician workload. The district has 25 facilitators who

perform many of the responsibilities typically filled by diagnosticians in many districts. While the

facilitators may have significant impact on the diagnostician workload the numbers are still

insufficient. Another factor impacting the diagnostician workload is the high number of students

referred for full and individual evaluations who do not qualify. Over 58% (632 of 1089) of

students referred during the 2004-05 school year did not meet eligibility requirements for special

education services. This greatly affects the amount of time and number of staff needed to

perform these assessments, prepare written reports and meet with the ARD committee within

required timelines. When the district improves the student intervention assistance process and

decreases the numbers of inappropriate referrals the appraisal staff allocations may be more

sufficient. This issue will be discussed further in the section of this chapter that addresses staff

efficiency.

The data also suggests insufficient staff to provide speech and language pathology for students

in Killeen ISD. The district’s number of students identified as having a speech impairment by

speech and language pathologists is three times the comparable district average. This

information, too, must be viewed within the context of the work responsibilities and service

delivery implemented in Killeen. Currently it is reported that speech and language pathologists

primarily provide articulation therapy services and the resource “communications” teacher

provides services for students who have language needs. With this practice, the caseload of

the speech and language pathologists could be significantly reduced. However, this practice is

questionable. This consultant is not aware of any school district that divides services for

students who meet eligibility requirements as speech impaired in this manner. There were

many concerns regarding the role and responsibilities of the communications resource teachers

mentioned in surveys and focus groups.


Page 98

There were many concerns from parents and faculty regarding the related services of

occupational and physical therapy. Eighteen faculty comments expressed concerns that there

is insufficient staff to provide the amount of service needed. Currently the staff roster reflects no

occupational therapists and three physical therapists. It is difficult to determine the sufficiency

status of these positions. Issues such as assessment, criteria for service based upon

educational need and suggested guidelines regarding the type, frequency and duration of

service from occupational and physical therapists are unclear. Some parents perceive that the

district expects the parent to obtain private therapy services. Teachers do not understand the

consultation model and their role in this approach.

There were at least 42 of 762 separate comments from faculty that specifically addressed

concerns regarding speech and language therapy services. Many expressed a need for more

staff citing that students were either receiving inappropriate services or limited services. One

faculty member wrote,

“I am concerned about Killeen ISD's speech department. 1)There are many students

who are receiving consultative speech services in which there is no consulting going on.

It seems to be a catch all service in which little or nothing is done to follow through with

this service. 2) The Communication Resource Lab is another concern. In years past the

speech pathologist was responsible for assessing and providing all speech services to

eligible students. Now there is a core group of speech pathologists who assess and

attend initial ARDs, then there are speech assistants who provide direct speech

services/consultative services, and THEN there are teachers (C-Lab teachers) who

provide language services for speech impaired students. This campus does not have a

C-Lab teacher...it has a Content Mastery Center teacher who doubles as a C-Lab

teacher. One teacher providing services in two different programs cuts down on the

efficiency and effectiveness of both programs. How do we improve services? I believe

that we need to hire more personnel. Services should be based on the students'

needs....not a head count! It's too easy to look at how many students are enrolled and

then make decisions about hiring qualified people or cutting back on personnel (such as

in the case of C-Lab teachers being cut from certain campuses). “


Page 99

Currently, the central special education department is staffed with one director and one

assistant director and four coordinators. When compared to other districts, the number of

special education teachers served per coordinator is less than the average. When compared to

the numbers of students with disabilities per coordinator the numbers are more than the

average and more than 7 of 10 comparable districts. Further it is noted that one coordinator

position is vacant. This position is necessary. The magnitude of the job, the responsibilities for

managing the department, the ever increasing and changing legal requirements, in addition to

the new accountability measures are but a few reasons justifying central administrative support.

Having administrative support for special education will enable a proactive approach to directing

the services for students.

In summary, based on an analysis of the data provided by the district and the data obtained

from the TEA and comparable districts, interviews, survey information, campus visits and focus

groups, the findings regarding Question 1 are:

• Killeen ISD has less than a sufficient number of campus-based special education

teachers for students with disabilities when compared to state and comparable district

statistics;

• The staffing allotments across campuses are inconsistent, notably at the elementary

level;

• Staffing for students receiving services through the resource room and students in pull

out programs appears sufficient on most campuses, however there is limited provision of

in-class support for the high numbers of students with disabilities who are in the general

education setting for most of the day;

• Killeen ISD appraisal staff numbers for students with disabilities is significantly less than

sufficient when contrasted with comparable districts.

• Killeen ISD speech/language pathology staff is significantly insufficient when compared

to state, regional and comparable districts;

• The number of central special education administrative support staff is sufficient for the

size of the district and the number of individuals requiring support, yet not all positions

are filled resulting in insufficiency.

• The staffing insufficiency noted is significantly impacted by efficiency factors described in

the next section of this report.


Page 100

Question 2: Efficiency

Efficient use of staff refers to the extent to which the system organizes the delivery of needed

services to students with disabilities to ensure maximum use of time, talent and resources. It is

of critical importance that the district considers efficiency factors of its existing staffing process

before assuming that additional staff is essential. Although there are some indicators of

insufficiency in staffing in the Killeen ISD, the efficiency in the use of existing staff warrants

further review.

Factors that Impact Efficiency.

Campuses have two primary responsibilities regarding staffing for students with disabilities. The

first responsibility is to use the existing resources wisely. This includes assigning staff in an

efficient manner so that students and staff receive the type and level of support they need. It

also includes careful attention to the use of paraprofessionals, attention to the instructional

settings, implementation of instructional strategies for diverse learners, scheduling based upon

the needs of students and use of peer supports when possible and appropriate. More

specifically, the following are the best practice descriptors that impact the need for staffing and

must be considered prior to adding staff to a campus. The degree to which Killeen ISD is or is

not implementing these factors will be described following this list of best practice descriptors:

• Non-categorical staffing models ensure that special education teachers are assigned as

members of grade level or department level teams and that these teachers have

common planning periods. It ensures that special education teachers have smaller

numbers of general education teachers with whom to coordinate schedules and

services. All special education teachers serve special education students regardless of

disability category at their assigned grade level(s) or departmental level(s).

• Use of paraprofessionals includes a clear description of instructional roles, identifying

needs and providing training to meet those needs, providing collaborative planning time,

monitoring performance, assuring that 90% of their time is spent providing instructional

support and ensuring that their skills are updated.

• Use of peer tutors includes an organized, systematic program for assigning peer

assistants and tutors, requires faculty recognition that “natural” supports are preferable

to adult supports and should be considered first, includes training peer tutors/assistants


Page 101

specifically for the roles they assume and clearly defines their roles and evaluates the

success of the peer tutoring program annually.

• Instructional settings should ensure that students are served on their home campus

whenever possible to assure that a disproportionate number of students with disabilities

are not served on a single campus. Teachers accept their responsibility to serve diverse

learners and teachers understand that services provided to students with disabilities in

resource or self-contained classes may result in less instructional learning time.

Regularly scheduled meetings are conducted to acquaint sending and receiving schools

with information necessary for smooth transitions (elementary to middle to high school)

to avoid radical shifts in the use of personnel created by the sending school.

• Scheduling strategies ensure that individual student needs (by type and level of support)

are established prior to scheduling. Hand scheduling prior to finalizing the schedule on

the computer is preferred in order to accommodate the specific support needs of

individual students. Other special need teachers and staff are incorporated in the

scheduling lineup to assure that services are not duplicated and the times when high-

need subjects are scheduled (reading/language arts) are varied throughout the school

day.

• Instructional strategies ensure that all teachers use a variety of instructional strategies

that meet the needs of all students. Lecture-based instruction is not the predominant

strategy since it equates to higher support needs. Teachers are masters of

differentiated instruction and recognize and accept that learning outcomes will vary for

students. All teachers use accommodations, modifications and adaptations to support

learners. Resource materials and supplemental materials that maximize efficiency are

available and utilized.

The second responsibility for the campus is to implement an objective, student-centered

decision-making approach in determining the type and level of support services needed for each

student with a disability. This decision-making process is a highly collaborative effort involving

all stakeholders (general education teachers, special education teachers, administrators,

parents and other appropriate staff). With this process, the stakeholders address three

questions, given the general education classroom as the reference point:


Page 102

1. Where are the opportunities to address an individual student’s IEP objectives within the

context of the school day?

2. What type and level of support is needed for the student to successfully meet his/her IEP

objectives?

3. Who will provide the support and how will it be scheduled?

This process is the foundation for determining staffing needs for a campus and assuring that

staffing is based on the needs of the students.

Non-Categorical Staffing Models.

The practice of non-categorical staffing is a highly effective approach that ensures the wise use

of available resources. With this practice, all special education staff is viewed as individuals

available to all students, regardless of type of disability or location of services. That is, special

education teachers are not “labeled” as “resource teachers” or “teacher of students with

emotional disabilities” or “life skills teachers”. Instead, they are assigned to serve various roles

throughout any given day based on the needs of the student population. With this practice,

teachers may be assigned to support students within a given grade level or department but

flexibility is the key.

This practice is efficient in that the teachers and paraprofessionals interact with fewer grade

levels or subject areas. There are fewer general education teachers to coordinate and meet

with, greater opportunity for common planning periods with collaborative partners and more

focused time for students. With this practice, there is better support for special education

teachers due to more in-depth knowledge of general education teachers and paraprofessionals,

fewer general education classes, less instructional materials to master and possibly fewer

students to serve. There is one disadvantage of this practice. With this approach, the non-

categorical teacher would have responsibility for a greater diversity of special education student

needs.

Killeen ISD primarily uses a categorical approach rather than a non -categorical model on all

campuses. Teachers and paraprofessionals are specifically assigned to a program or category

such as content mastery, resource, Functional Academic Skills Program (FASPI),


Page 103

Developmental Learning Class (DLC), Positive Behavior Support (PBS) Preschool Program for

Children with Disabilities (PPCD), Communication Lab (C-Lab) etc. Additionally the FASP and

PBS programs have levels (FASP I, II, PBS I, II, and III). There are three classifications of

instructional paraprofessionals (Aide I, Aide II and Physical Needs). Resource teachers are also

assigned to provide content mastery services and communications instruction simultaneously.

With the categorical assignment approach there is little flexibility of scheduling and teachers and

paraprofessionals sometimes are over-supported in classrooms with very small numbers of

students. At other times the special education class size is excessive and students are under-

supported. The Faculty Survey responses regarding categorical/label-driven practices reflects

the following results:

Table 37. Percent of Faculty Agreement Regarding Student Placement By Category or Label.

Survey Question

Adm

inis

tra

tor

SE

Te

ache

r

Par

apro

fes

sion

al

SLP

’s

Dia

gnos

tic

ians

Rel

ated

S

ervi

ces

Tota

l

Students with disabilities receive services on the basis of their needs rather than on the basis of label

78%

71.4%

60.9%

33.3%

33.35

66.7%

73.7%

A significant number of faculty members do not agree that services for students with disabilities

are determined by needs.

It is possible to utilize staff non-categorically and distribute students in a manner to maximize

the amount of resources available. For example, students with disabilities at the same grade

level could be assigned to one or two general education teachers. Then the non-categorical

teacher could schedule the services for these students in a more efficient manner, spending

some time in the role of a support facilitator, some time in the role of formal co-teacher and

other times as a specialized support provider. The non-categorical teacher could also be

assigned to support students in more than one grade level. This would allow for a more

equitable distribution of students and support a more appropriate caseload and class size for all

professionals. Regardless of the assignment of teachers, it is of utmost importance that the


Page 104

decision-making process that outlines the type and level of support for each student is the basis

for assigning staff.

Use of Paraprofessionals.

There is a high use of paraprofessionals to support the students with disabilities on each

campus. These individuals provide valuable assistance to students and teachers and contribute

to the efficiency of services for students. Over the years, the responsibilities of and

expectations for these individuals have changed and increased significantly. Paraprofessionals

were observed in general education classrooms for the purpose of providing in-class support to

both general and special education students. When observed in these settings, they were

frequently not engaged with students or the teacher. Many were seen sitting.

Paraprofessionals were also observed in categorical classes with very few students. Some

were observed to be intensely engaged with students. The most frequent concerns regarding

the efficiency of paraprofessionals were issues of supervising their work, training and staff

development for their assigned responsibilities and the practice of assigning them to support

students in general education without proper training and/or supervision. There is a need to

schedule time for the paraprofessionals and teachers to plan collaboratively in order to improve

the efficiency of services for the students with disabilities.

Another significant component regarding the efficient use of staff is the practice of assigning a

paraprofessional to an individual student because of a perceived need. There are several

concerns regarding this one to one practice. First, it is reported that the process for assigning a

one to one paraprofessional is not clear and varies from case to case. The role of the ARD/IEP

committee in requesting this type of staffing support is unclear. Second, this level of support is

very intense. The support may be intended to allow the student to participate in the general

education setting with inclusion as a goal. However, the practice of having a paraprofessional

sitting side-by-side in the classroom can actually be exclusionary, adds an unnecessary stigma

and often discourages other students from interacting naturally with the student with disabilities.

Third, this practice may be an inefficient use of staff and in some cases, inappropriate for the

student. It can lead to an over-dependence of the student on the paraprofessional that, in turn,

will cause the student to be over-supported.


Page 105

Use of Peer Tutors.

The practice of using peers to assist students with disabilities as a form of natural support was

not observed in general education classrooms. However, in viewing the classrooms there was

evidence of cooperative grouping practices. An organized, systematic program for assigning

peer assistants and tutors was not evident. It is important that faculty recognize that “natural”

supports are preferable to adult supports and should be considered first before adult supports

are assigned. Training peer tutors/assistants specifically for the roles they assume, clearly

defining their roles, and evaluating the success of the peer-tutoring program is also very

important. Peer support at a more formal level is an efficient practice for providing services for

students with disabilities.

Instructional Settings.

An efficient and effective practice regarding instructional settings would ensure that students are

served on their home campus whenever possible to assure that a disproportionate number of

students with disabilities are not served on a single campus. When there are a disproportionate

number of students with disabilities the campus may have difficulty in supporting the students

and needs of these students due to the high numbers. When students are clustered at a school

other than their home school, issues of ownership, membership and equity surface. There are

other efficiency issues such as transportation scheduling, coordinating collaboration between

home and cluster site and interpersonal and family issues when the child does not attend the

same school as his/her sibling(s) and neighborhood friends.

Killeen ISD clusters students with disabilities for services on several elementary campuses.

This practice further promotes separation and isolation of students and reinforces special

education as a place rather than a service. At least 5 comments from parents expressed

concern over their child being transferred from his/her home campus to a cluster site. One

stated, “I am frustrated that my son has attended three different schools since being in this

district. KISD is doing a disservice to special needs children by forcing them to attend multiple

schools other than their home campus. 2. I am frustrated that my child doesn't receive the

speech and occupational therapy that he should. A "monthly consult" does NOT have the same

results as one-on-one time. 3. I am frustrated that transportation has become an issue lately.

Although the daycare my son attends is not within the zone of his home campus, it is the closest


Page 106

daycare to that campus. There is NOT a daycare within the zone of his home campus. If my son

were allowed to attend his home campus, then the daycare would provide transportation and

this wouldn't be an issue. It's unfair for KISD to force my son to attend a different school and

then inform me that transportation might not be provided.” It is possible to provide the needed

level of support for each student in most cases on the home campus. The practice of clustering

students warrants further consideration.

Teachers do not always accept their responsibility to serve diverse learners nor do they

understand that services provided to students with disabilities in resource or self-contained

classes may result in less instructional learning time. In reviewing the focus groups and faculty

comments there is a high level of interest that the district create more pull out services. There

was frequent mention that the FASP program needs to be separated into two levels and that at

the secondary level more resource classes are needed for the content areas of science and

social studies.

While not fully practiced in Killeen, there is a continuum of services for students with disabilities

in a best practice model that includes external support, in-class support and specialized support.

External support means support materials prepared prior to instructional delivery. The need for

these materials is identified through the IEP process and collaborative planning between the

general education teacher and the special populations personnel. Support can include

instructional accommodations/adaptations and/or curricular modifications prepared in advance

of instruction and can be prepared by both general and special populations personnel. This

practice is staff efficient in that it does not require an actual person with the student, rather

offers supports that enable the student to achieve success. It does require assignment of this

responsibility to an individual and time allocation for this support to be prepared.

The primary delivery of special education service for a student with disabilities is pull out or

content mastery. Killeen ISD provides very limited in-class support for some students with

disabilities. This practice is highly inconsistent from campus to campus.

In most instances, the number of students with disabilities in the general classroom was very

low, even though a special education staff member was present. When support providers were


Page 107

in the general education classroom it appeared that the general education classroom teacher

carried the responsibility for planning, preparing and delivering the lesson. The special

education teachers and paraprofessionals seemed to be “observers” in the general classroom,

pulled aside students with disabilities or focused their attention only on the students with

disabilities. In one case the paraprofessional in-class provider took the students to the content

master center for service.

Killeen ISD provides services for many students in a resource room setting. This practice is

considered specialized support and is part of the continuum of services. With specialized

support, students with disabilities can receive highly specialized instruction in a specific area as

identified through the IEP. It was noted by associates that there were students with disabilities

in the resource room classes that could have received services within the general education

setting with support. Some administrators noted that they would like to provide more in-class

supports for students but this practice is limited because of the numbers of students in the

resource classes. Most schools have opted to provide only resource classes or content mastery

for students even though they are aware of students who can benefit from receiving services in

the general education setting with appropriate supports.

Content Mastery is an instructional delivery practice widely used throughout Killeen ISD

schools. Content mastery is a pullout service, that is, students leave the general education

setting, travel to another location and receive services from one or more adults.

Most Killeen ISD content mastery centers were full size classrooms furnished with tables, desks

and supplemental materials. Many share the facility with a resource classroom and in many

instances the teacher serves a dual role of resource teacher and content mastery teacher at the

same time. Generally each program had procedures in place for students to sign in and there

was record keeping for students on an individual basis. Some content mastery centers

published cumulative data that noted the number of minutes a student spent in the center during

a specific grading period.


Page 108

Typically, students remain in the general education classroom for direct instruction provided by

the teacher, then go to the CMC/learning lab for additional support, such as modified

assessment, assistance with written assignments and completion of assignments.

This service delivery was observed to be a highly inefficient staffing practice in Killeen ISD

schools and is problematic from a staffing practice for several reasons.

The centers were staffed with at least one adult and frequently with more than 2 adults. The

number of students accessing the centers was generally very small or very large and the

amount of time the students remained in the centers was relatively short. As a staffing practice,

the staff could be better utilized providing support to the students in the general education

settings.

When students were observed in the content mastery center, typically they were working on an

assessment sent by the classroom teacher or receiving assistance with an assignment or

worksheet. Often students were working on these tests and worksheets without assistance

from the teachers. It appears that in some cases the content mastery center is used as a quiet

place for the student to go for assignment completion. There are other alternatives for test

taking and work completion that do not require a separate location and separate staff

supervision.

When students leave the general education classroom to go to another part of the building

during class time the result is loss of academic learning time. Students must disengage from

instruction, travel to another site, then re-engage in instruction. This loss of time and loss of

momentum can have adverse effects on the learner. If classroom teachers are following a

quality lesson cycle, the student typically leaves during the time for guided practice. Thus the

student is not only losing time from instruction, but also is missing opportunities for

reinforcement of learning. This is especially true when the content mastery teacher does not

directly support the student or when the center teacher has a high number of students from

different grade levels and content areas to support and assist.


Page 109

There is a belief that students with disabilities need a quiet place to take a test. While this may

be true for some students there can be other options for providing this quiet environment other

than a highly staffed content mastery center.

The practice of assigning the resource teacher to serve as a content mastery teacher

simultaneously is also an ineffective, inefficient and inappropriate practice. In this case the

teacher must stop instruction with the students who are receiving resource services and assist

students there for content mastery assistance. Both lose learning time.

The impact of the general classroom instructional delivery practices on the need for students to

receive assistance in a separate location is significant. The more teachers, including special

education co-teachers, implement accommodations, modifications and differentiated instruction

and assessment, the more students will be able to participate fully in the general and special

education classrooms.

A more efficient use of staff would be to send the content mastery teacher(s) into the general

education classroom. Another efficient staffing practice would enable the staff assigned to CMC

to be scheduled in another capacity for the first half of the class period. Yet another practice

would allow students to complete their work including assessments within the classroom

independently or with peer assistance.

Scheduling Strategies.

Issues were raised regarding the master schedule of students on one campus and whether or

not the schedule could allow for an equal distribution of students and the use of a flexible

staffing model necessary to support them. For example, many elementary campuses teach the

same subjects at the same time. This creates difficulty in scheduling support in the general

education class for those students who may benefit, while also scheduling specialized support

outside of the general education classroom for other students – all during the same time period.

Administrators request assistance in scheduling special education students and staff. Given

the different types and levels of supports needed by the students scheduling of the special

education students needs to be a priority in order to maximize the use of available staff.


Page 110

Instructional Strategies.

Critical to staffing efficiency is the use of highly effective instructional strategies by the teacher.

When the teacher designs instruction in such a manner to bring learning within the reach of

each learner, the need for intensive support, specialized accommodations and modifications, as

well as specialized support, is minimized. Good teaching practices enable the learner to

maximize learning time, thus maximizing the efficiency of instruction.

Observed in Killeen ISD were minimal use of highly effective teaching practices that included

quality lesson planning, use of a lesson cycle and clear, purposeful instruction, activity based

learning, flexible grouping and use of accommodations and modifications. Some classrooms

had a full range of materials, though this practice varied from campus to campus and teacher-

to-teacher.

Specific instructional strategies noted lectures, pencil and paper tasks and whole group

instruction. Teachers used content mastery to provide accommodations to support learners.

The Faculty Survey response regarding the skill of teachers in strategies for addressing the

needs of diverse supports the findings as follows:

Table 38. Faculty Percent of Agreement Regarding Skill of General Education Teachers

Survey Question Percent Administrator Agreement

Percent General Education Teacher Agreement

Percent Special Education Teacher Agreement

Percent total Faculty Agreement

General Education teachers are skilled in strategies for addressing the needs of diverse learners.

71% 73.5%

53.5%

65.6%

As the table indicates, more than 25% of the general education teachers do not agree they are

skilled in strategies for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Approximately half of the special

education teachers do not agree that general education teachers are skilled in addressing the

needs of diverse learners.


Page 111

Noted in special education classrooms was the absence of a consistent curriculum framework.

Often the curriculum seemed vague, fragmented and significantly different from the general

curriculum. It was reported that some teachers are reluctant to provide accommodations and

modifications. Special education teachers expressed frustration regarding their knowledge and

expectations of the general curriculum. They realize that there is increased emphasis and focus

on instruction in the TEKS curriculum for special education but their knowledge and training is

limited.

The intervention assistance team process can be an innovative and effective practice that is

efficient in the use of time and personnel, allows for flexible procedures and record keeping,

provides for on-going team development and a continuous opportunity for acquisition of

additional skills. Killeen ISD’s student support team process is in need of further review to

ensure that appropriate interventions are designed that prevent over referrals to special

education, thus less time is spent evaluating students who do not meet eligibility requirements

for special education. This will improve the efficiency of the appraisal staff. Mentioned

previously, there are a highly significant number of students referred for special education

assessment who do not qualify for services. Thus the over referral of students creates issues in

staffing efficiency in that an extraordinary amount of time is devoted to assessment, meetings

and planning by staff.

A detailed explanation of the instructional practices is provided in Theme Three of this report.

In summary, there are many factors that impact the efficiency of staffing for students with

disabilities that include the following:

• Killeen ISD primarily uses a categorical approach rather than a non -categorical model

on all campuses. Teachers and paraprofessionals and students are typically assigned

to a program or category; this practice results in inefficient use of staff.

• There is a high use of paraprofessionals to support the students with disabilities on each

campus. These individuals can provide valuable assistance to students and teachers

and contribute to the efficiency of services for students. In some cases there is an over-

use of paraprofessionals.


Page 112

• Paraprofessionals are assigned categorically and are not used flexibly resulting in

inequity of assignment.

• The practice of assigning a paraprofessional to support only one student is not always

efficient, resulting in isolation of the student and sometimes over support.

• An effective, organized, systematic program for assigning peer assistants and tutors is

not currently utilized in the district. The use of peer assistants and tutors can contribute

to staff efficiency.

• Killeen ISD clusters students with disabilities for services on several elementary

campuses. This practice further promotes separation and isolation of students and

reinforces special education as a place rather than a service.

• Killeen ISD provides limited in-class support for students with disabilities within general

education classrooms on some campuses and there is typically not an equitable sharing

of instructional responsibilities in classrooms where there are two adults.

• CMC/Learning Lab support seemed a highly inefficient practice resulting in lost time and

instructional delivery issues.

• Killeen ISD has a technology system that enhances the efficient utilization of staff.

• Killeen ISD’s student intervention assistance process warrants further review to ensure

that the process contributes to the efficiency of referral and evaluation services as well

as providing for early interventions to prevent students from experiencing difficulty in

learning.

Question 3: Appropriate Use Of Staff

This third question regarding staffing for students with disabilities recognizes that sufficiency

and efficiency of staff is not acceptable if the district is using inappropriate practices or if

students are receiving inappropriate services. Indicators of appropriate staffing would include

appropriately trained and qualified teachers as well as related service providers delivering the

instructional and related services with support from well-trained paraprofessionals. The

responsibilities of the service providers would be clearly delineated. For example, the teachers

and paraprofessionals would have a keen understanding of the expectations for instruction.


Page 113

Factors that Impact Appropriate Use of Staff.

• Trained and qualified staff. The district would provide quality staff development and

training to all staff (administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, related service

providers) regarding serving students with disabilities. General and special education

teachers would jointly participate in staff development as appropriate. Topics would be

determined based upon the needs of the students and staff and the training would be

ongoing and continuous. Roles and responsibilities of each service provider would be

clearly delineated to avoid confusion and inequity.

• Age appropriate location and resources. Students would be educated on their age-

appropriate home campus and services would be delivered on the campus site in an

appropriate environment with age appropriate materials and resources. Students

receiving services in a specialized setting would be scheduled to allow for minimal

interruption of instruction in other settings. Students with disabilities would have full

access to the school community and be considered full members of their class or grade-

level rather than visitors.

• Equitable assignment and scheduling. The ARD/IEP team members would reach

decisions regarding the provision of services and level of support needed for each

student on an individual basis in such a manner as to avoid over- or under-support for

the student. Class size, caseloads and workloads of all staff would be assigned to

ensure equity. Teachers in collaborative arrangements would jointly plan, prepare and

deliver instruction and would be present on a daily basis. Ancillary duties would be

assigned equitably among staff and to minimize time away from direct contact with

students. The scheduling of students with disabilities would also be equitable to ensure

the appropriate class size and caseloads.

Appropriately Trained and Qualified Staff.

Issues, concerns and suggestions regarding the quality of staff, staff development and training

were frequently mentioned by all sub groups in focus groups, surveys and interviews. At least

79 written statements from the faculty survey addressed positive and negative information

regarding staff quality, training and staff development. Each individual interviewed mentioned


Page 114

issues with staff development as a factor impacting the quality of services for students with

disabilities.

The faculty survey posed one questions regarding the skill level of general education teachers.

The following chart notes the percentage of agreement for administrators and special education

teachers.

Table 39. Percentage of Agreement Regarding Skill of General Education Teachers

Survey Question

Percentage Administrator Agreement

Percentage Special Education Teacher Agreement

Percentage General Education Teacher Agreement

Percentage of Total Faculty Agreement

General education teachers on our campus are skilled in strategies for addressing the needs of diverse learners.

71.0

53.5%

73.5%

65.6%

As the table reveals there is a significant difference in agreement between administrators,

general education teachers and special education teachers. Over 25% of administrators and

general education teachers and approximately 45% of special education teachers do not agree

that teachers are skilled in strategies.

Parents in their comments also expressed concerns regarding the quality of staff and the need

for more training of staff. Parents suggested more training for new teachers, training for

teachers in understanding students with behavioral difficulties and ADHD, training for general

education teachers regarding modifications and training for paraprofessionals. They also

suggested that the district provide training for parents.

There were several comments regarding the skill level of the facilitators. Facilitators expressed

concern and need for more assistance regarding policies, procedures and options for students.

They note that responses from central office staff are not always consistent. The quality of the

facilitators is reportedly inconsistent. Some are doing an exceptional job and are viewed as

extremely helpful and well trained. Others are viewed as minimally helpful.


Page 115

All subgroups and all individuals interviewed reported a need for additional training for general

education staff, special education staff and administrative staff concerning curriculum and

services for students with disabilities. More specifically, there was a high level of interest in

ensuring that the special educators have more training in the general education curriculum and

researched based practices that support implementation of the curriculum. Also a significant

issue was the skill and ability of the general education teachers in working with students with

diverse learning needs. All groups identified need training in accommodations, modifications

and differentiated instruction and strategies for diverse learners. It is critical that training be

offered and provided jointly since a unified approach is preferred over a fragmented or separate

approach.

Age Appropriate Location and Resources.

The school campus facilities visited within Killeen ISD were adequate at most locations.

Students with disabilities receive special education services on age-appropriate campuses.

Most of the special education classroom locations were integrated throughout the building

facility rather than being isolated in separate locations. Overall, facilities visited were well

maintained, well organized for instructional use and creatively used to maximize the utilization of

available space.

Age-appropriate instructional materials were available for use in most classrooms including

special education classrooms. The special education materials tended to be teacher made and

not curriculum-based. Resource classes did not consistently use TEKS based materials nor do

the classes parallel the general curriculum. Classrooms for students with moderate to severe

conditions did not consistently use researched based curriculum products such as FACES.

There was significant inconsistency regarding the service delivery options from campus to

campus. A few offered in-class support options while most only had pullout resource, content

mastery and self-contained classes. On more than one occasion the consultants were told that

the campus cannot provide in-class support for students with the existing numbers of staff and

found it necessary to implement more pull-out services. However, this is not a finding of this

report. If the student-centered decision-making process is properly implemented and proper

scheduling practices are in place it should be possible to provide services needed by the

students with disabilities.


Page 116

Killeen continues to cluster certain types of special education services such as FASP, DLC and

PBS. This practice creates issues of proportionality. Campuses with cluster programs do not

have natural proportions of students with disabilities and do not have natural proportions of

students by disability category. Therefore involvement of these students with non-disabled

peers can be more difficult, as well as opportunities to have friendships with their neighborhood

peers. The home school typically doesn’t monitor the student. Issues of compliance with the

No Child Left Behind Act Adequate Yearly Progress was also cited as problematic.

There were many issues regarding the FASP program. There is a degree of dissatisfaction

concerning the decision to collapse the LIFE Skills Class and the Partially Self Contained Class

and form a FASP class. Concerns ranged from a belief that the FASP is not effective because

of the wide range of diversity and level of training of the teachers. There is a high interest in

further dividing the program and adding other programs such as FASP/ Behavior. This is

reflective of a pervasive belief that special education is a program and not a service and

practices are placement-driven based on disability condition and/or ability level and/or behavior.

Equitable Assignment and Schedule

Of significant importance regarding appropriateness issues for staff is the topic of caseload,

class size and workload. Caseload and class size have long been the primary factors in

determining staffing allocations. The responsibilities and roles (workload) of the staff for special

education programming are not always systematically considered. Caseload varied from

campus to campus as did class sizes and workload.

The status of the special education teacher is perceived to not be equal by special educators.

More specifically, 93% of administrators and general education teachers note they view special

education as faculty members of equal status. Only 57% of special education teachers agree

with this statement.

The role and responsibilities of the Communication Resource teacher is unclear. The practice

of assigning students with speech and language disabilities to receive services from a

communication lab teacher needs to be reviewed. Comments from these individuals indicate


Page 117

they are uncertain of their roles, what curriculum to follow and how to deliver services. This is

another indicator of program driven practices.

In general education classes where there was in-class support there were issues in role clarity

and sharing of responsibilities. The teachers did not understand their roles. There are many

structures that can be followed in co-teaching and support facilitation. The general education

teacher was frequently observed taking the lead role with the special education provider either

drifting or monitoring students. It is important that the roles move toward jointly sharing

responsibilities for the class.

There were several issues regarding the paraprofessionals and appropriate practices that may

warrant further attention. It was reported that many aides are minimally involved in the

classroom while other aides “run the classroom”. Aides are sometimes left alone for long

periods of time or take over the class while the teacher prepares for ARD meetings. Some have

been pulled to other duties away from the classroom assigned. Frequently mentioned was a

need for more training for the paraprofessional staff. Also there is an inequity in allocation of

paraprofessionals on some campuses. It was reported that the paraprofessionals are hired by

the campus and cannot be reassigned resulting in a high staff to student ratio on some

campuses and a low ratio on others. There were observed instances where aides were

intensely engaged with students who have significant needs.

There were some instances where students were not always treated with respect. On one

campus teachers were observed talking about students with disabilities in a negative manner in

the teacher workroom, on another campus adults talked about a student who had been referred

to the office for suspected discipline issues in front of office staff, visitors and the student. Both

of these instances were inappropriate and did not respect the privacy rights of each child.

In summary, a review of the appropriate of staffing practices for students with disabilities in

Killeen ISD revealed the following:

• All sub groups and all individuals interviewed reported a need for additional training for

general and special education in the areas of accommodations, modifications and

diverse learner strategies.


Page 118

• There is a high level of need for training in the area of inclusive education practices.

• Some staff were viewed as intensely engaged in the learning process and in maximizing

academic learning time with student, while others were minimally involved.

• Facilities are appropriate, well maintained, organized for instruction and maximize the

use of available space. The locations of special education classrooms were integrated

throughout the buildings.

• Cluster sites for some elementary programs result in a disproportionate number of

students with significant needs on a campus.

• Material resources available to special education students were age appropriate on most

campuses. Special education classes did not consistently use the general curriculum or

other researched based curriculum products.

• In-class support for students with disabilities is limited. The decision making and

scheduling processes are impacting the campuses’ ability to provide more in-class

support.

• There is a high level of controversy regarding the FASP program. Many believe it is

inappropriate and want to further divide the students by ability and behavior. This is

reflective of a systemic belief regarding placement verses services for students with

disabilities.

• A significantly high number of special education teachers do not view themselves as

faculty members of equal status.

• The facilitators are viewed as a positive asset for special education services, however

the skill levels of the individual facilitators range significantly.

• The workload and caseload of special education is not always systematically considered

resulting in inequities in teacher assignments and schedules.

• The practice of having students with speech impairments served by a resource

communications lab teacher is unclear.

• Paraprofessionals are viewed as highly engaged and critical on some campuses and as

minimally involved and inappropriate on others.

• The roles for co-teachers and paraprofessionals are unclear on some campuses and

need to be defined.


Page 119

Effective, efficient and appropriate use of staff is ultimately the foundation supporting the service

delivery needs of students with disabilities. It is of critical importance that staff deployment be

based upon the needs of students and that an objective, student-centered framework be the

basis for staffing allocations. Killeen ISD is in need of a new direction regarding staffing for

students with disabilities. For this new direction to be successful, training, resources, increased

skill obtainment, increased collaborative opportunities and a willingness to go beyond the

traditional approaches in meeting the educational needs of all students in the Killeen ISD will be

necessary. The following recommendations provide the focus for another step toward

continuous improvement for all students, regardless of their limitations.

Focus Group Comments Regarding Staffing.

The following table shows the comments provided by focus group participants relative to this

section on Sufficient, Efficient, and Appropriate Use of Staff. The table lists each comment

category that emerged relative to the broad topical area and indicates the specific stakeholder

groups in which each comment was provided (see Table 40).


Page 120

Table 40. Focus Group Comments Regarding Staffing

Theme Issues

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ee

Supe

rinte

n.

Coun

cil

Elem

. Pr

inci

pals

Sec.

Pr

inci

pals

Dia

gnos

ticia

ns

Faci

litat

ors

Spec

ialis

ts,

Rela

ted

Srv

SLPs

HS

Coor

dina

tor

Instr

uctio

nal

Spec

ialis

ts El

em. G

en E

d Ts

El

em. S

pec

Ed T

s Se

c. G

en E

d Ts

Se

c. S

pec

Ed

Ts

Para

prof

essio

nals

Staffing

Difficulty retaining special education personnel due to burnout, problems with classroom management, attitudes

X X X X X X X X 8

Staffing

Lack of personnel for appropriate speech services

X X X X X X X 7

Staffing

Scheduling to meet Least Restrictive Environment is difficult

X X X X X X 6

Staffing

Differences in stipends paid to specific categories of personnel

X X X X 4

Staffing

Frequently out of class for ARDs, meetings, etc.

X X X X 4

Staffing

Difficulty recruiting special education

X X X 3

Staffing Facilitators are spread too thin X X 2


Page 121

Recommendations Pertaining to Staffing Sufficiency, Efficiency and Appropriateness

1. Adopt a plan for training and staff development that centers on clarifying staff questions

and concerns relative to addressing the needs of students with disabilities where the

general education curriculum is the reference point for each individual student. Provide

training to instructional, administrative and support staff.

2. Increase appropriate in-class support options within the confines of the general education

classroom setting. Training and opportunities for collaboration must be prerequisites and

should be built into the developmental phase of enhanced services within the regular

curriculum environment. Develop an on-going training program that can be implemented

as new staff members join campuses and can assist staff in creating a framework for

success prior to the implementation of the support to be provided. Training topics should

include (but are not limited to): content, roles and responsibilities in a collaborative

partnership, equity in instructional delivery, positive behavior interventions, student

engagement and differentiated instructional strategies.

3. Apply the decision-making process to determine the type and level of support needed for

each student with a disability to determine staffing allocations. Data suggest that Killeen

ISD may need additional staff to provide in-class support for students with disabilities.

4. Carefully review the support level needs for students in the elementary and secondary

resource classes. Train all special education personnel with respect to differentiated

instruction and particularly in multilevel instruction. Instructional monitoring should include

an array of instructional strategies that have been determined based on students’ abilities,

interests/attitudes and learning styles. Differentiated strategies should be the norm, not the

exception, to the daily operation of the specialized class setting where instruction is

provided by a special education teacher and/or paraprofessional.

5. Consider the findings of insufficient teaching, appraisal and speech/language pathology

staff. After a review of the type and level of support needed by each student with a


Page 122

disability allocate teaching staff to ensure that external, in-class and specialized support is

available.

6. Review the current status of occupational and physical therapy services regarding the

number of students recommended and the type and level of service recommended. Ensure

that service recommendations are based upon proper assessment and student need and

not on the availability of staff.

7. Provide an in-depth review of the student intervention assistance system (pre- referral

process). Identify the issues associated with over referral of students to special education.

Provide training to campus teams in the intervention assistance process as well as specific

training and staff development in meeting the needs of diverse learners.

8. Reconsider the practice of resource communications classes. Increase the number of

speech/language pathologists to ensure that students with this disability condition are being

served appropriately.

9. Improve the communication system regarding the provision of staff development and

training for all teachers. Ensure that special education teachers are included in the general

education curriculum training and ensure that general education teachers are provided

training and information regarding special education services and student with disabilities.

10. Consider a non-categorical approach to staffing at the elementary level to maximize the

use of the professional and paraprofessional staff and to increase the collaborative process

between general and special education staff members. Assign all special education staff to

grade levels, core teams and/or department teams in order to facilitate collaboration, share

information and be involved in mini-staff development sessions with their general education

colleagues.

11. Increase highly qualified, trained instructional staff to meet the needs of students with

disabilities whose supports are to be embedded within the general education classroom.


Page 123

12. Carefully review the roles and responsibilities of the diagnosticians to ensure the campus

and the diagnostician are aware of the responsibilities of each entity. Address the topics of

ARD attendance, ARD paperwork preparation and monitoring, communication with parents,

compliance review and collaboration between diagnostician and instructional staff.

13. Increase instructionally relevant training for paraprofessionals in conjunction with other

research-based, classroom specific training that will bolster the success of the

paraprofessionals in working with both staff and students.

14. Provide follow-up training and technical assistance to teachers and paraprofessionals in

models of in-class support (accommodations, modifications, support facilitation and co-

teaching).

15. Provide technical assistance in the area of scheduling of students with disabilities within the

regular education classrooms in order to alleviate potential barriers, over-crowding of some

classrooms and master schedule conflicts. The focus for this assistance would be the

appropriate disposition of individual student needs as well as the appropriate placement of

the student.

16. Increase integrated services in the areas of speech and language, occupational therapy,

physical therapy and adaptive physical education based on the identified learning

objectives of the individual student’s IEP.

17. Change the content mastery center process at the elementary and secondary levels.

Identify ways in which a transitional change might utilize some of the CMC staff to support

students with disabilities directly within the general education classes. Close the CMC at

certain times (e.g., at the beginning of the instructional period and distribute the learning lab

staff within the general education classes. Actually, this proposed change might lead to

students remaining in the general education class longer, thereby increasing a student’s

instructional time on a given task.


Page 124

Theme Five: Collaborative Relationships with Parents, Staff and Schools

With the increasing recognition of the diversity in today’s classrooms and the growing

acceptance among educators that students with disabilities can hold full membership in the

school, the need for parents and educators to support not only students but also one another

has grown. Collaborative relationships, while not exclusive to special education, are essential

for many activities related to special education such as intervention teams, student assessment,

IEP teams, parent conferences, mediation, making appropriate and meaningful

accommodations and modifications for students, teacher involvement in in-class support and

utilizing classroom assistant services effectively.

This section will focus on four distinct areas, as identified by the data, within which collaborative

relationships are essential for effective student learning: (a) parent and school, (b) teacher to

teacher, (c) teacher and classroom assistant, and (d) administrator and teacher. These groups,

as well as the issues that emerged within each, were identified by multiple data sources

collected in Killeen ISD, including campus observations by program evaluators, faculty and

parent surveys and focus group comments.

Information from parents reflected in this summary chapter was obtained through a parent

survey and comments from parents who participated in a focus group. The parent survey

contained twelve statements for the parents to provide a response indicating levels of

agreement. The survey also contained two open-ended questions regarding positive aspects of

services for students with disabilities and areas of need for response. Information from six

hundred thirty parent surveys is reflected in this chapter. Additionally the parents provided 226

separate written responses to the two open-ended questions. These written responses were

analyzed and are also reflected in this report.


Page 125

The level of parental responses is reflected in the following table:

Table 41. Number of Parents Responding to the Parent Survey by Level Level Number of

Responses Early Childhood-Pre K 42

Elementary 305

Intermediate/Middle 138

High School 145

Totals 630

Parent-School Relationships

Active parent involvement is recognized as a significant factor in the success of students with

disabilities in their educational programs and the practice of fostering positive home-school

relationships is a key ingredient in any student’s success in school. The literature (Christenson

and Cleary, 1990, Epstein, 1992, and Fine, 1990) is very clear on the positive outcomes that we

derive from highly collaborative relationships between school and home. Recognized outcomes

include:

1. Student’s grades and test scores improve; they complete more homework and are more

involved in the classroom activities.

2. Teachers are recognized by parents as having better interpersonal and teaching skills,

are given higher teacher evaluation scores by principals and indicate a greater

satisfaction with their jobs.

3. Parents show an increased understanding of the function of schools and improve their

communications with their children and educators in general and concerning schoolwork

in particular. Parents also participate more with learning activities at home.

4. Schools are rated as more effective and present more successful school programs (p.

221).

Over the past five years there has been a new focus on the role of parents in the special

education process that has greatly strengthened this role. With the IDEA ’97 reauthorization, the

requirement for parental involvement in this process moved from participant to partnership. This


Page 126

strong emphasis of the role of the parent continues with the recently reauthorized Individual with

Disabilities Education Implementation Act (IDEIA). Parents now are to be actively involved in

the decision-making process rather than passive participants. They are to be involved in the

student’s assessment and identification and these reports are to reflect this participation.

Parents must receive a copy of the assessment report. Parents are equal members of the

ARD/IEP team and are considered full participants in the development of the student’s IEP. The

team must consider and document the parent’s views in its deliberations. Parents must also be

informed of the progress of their child in the same manner as students with no disabilities. Now

with the recent reauthorization of IDEA combined with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind

Act the role of the parent is further strengthened and becomes even more critical. The following

tables reveal the results of the survey information provided by parents contrasted with the

perceptions of administrators and other faculty members in Killeen ISD by sub category.

Table 42. Contrasting Parent-Faculty Perceptions on Questions Regarding A Common Vision

Survey Question Percent Parent Agreement

Percent Campus Administrator Agreement



Percent Total Faculty Agreement

Our child’s school provides quality services to students with disabilities.

83.8% 93.4% 74.3%

87.9%

84.1%

Our child is considered a full member of the student body in his/her school

84.9% 94.7 64.6%

93.9

84.3

All faculty members we have talked to seem to feel a strong sense of responsibility for all students, including students with disabilities.

81.6% 92%

52.8%

85.8%

76.4%

These results reveal a majority of parents believe the district provides quality services for

students and that the children are accepted as full members of the student body. Fewer parents

agree that faculty has a high sense of responsibility for their student. More than 18% of the

parents do not agree that faculty shares a strong sense of responsibility for all students. A high

percentage of administrators and general education teachers also agree with the statements

regarding quality special education services, membership, and faculty-shared responsibility


Page 127

pertaining to students with disabilities. A highly significant percentage of special education

teachers do not agree with these statements.

Table 43. Parent View Regarding Instructional Strategies and Modifications


My child’s teachers modify instruction as specified in the IEP/ BIP 88.3% I am knowledgeable of the contents of my child’s IEP. 94.1% I attended my child’s most recent ARD meeting. 93.7%

These results reveal that a majority of parents of students participating in special education

services believe that the general education teachers are providing needed accommodations and

modifications. Roughly 5% of parents do not agree with the statement.

It is clear that many, if not most, educators recognize the importance and the value of a positive

home-school relationship and view parents as the central figure in each student’s life and

therefore in his or her success in school. A significant percentage of Killeen ISD parents of

students with disabilities indicated their satisfaction with their relationship with their child’s

educators as reflected in the following table.


Page 128

Table 44. Contrasting Parent-Faculty Perceptions on Key Survey Questions Regarding Positive Family-School Partnerships






KISD educators treat me as a partner in matters concerning my child’s educational program.

84.4% 89.5%

73.9%

83.6%

80.4%

My experience in attending ARD/IEP meetings in Killeen has been positive. I would characterize relationships between Killeen ISD Schools and parents of students with disabilities as positive.

84.2% 88.2%

72.9%

84.3%

80.9%

I feel supported by my child’s principal in my efforts to educate my child with disabilities.

86.0% NA 78.2%

84.0%

78.5%

I feel supported by the central office staff in my efforts to educate my child with disabilities.

83.3% 69.8%

54.2%

65.8%

62.8%

These results reveal that a majority of parents of students participating in special education feel

positively about their relationships with Killeen ISD educators and with the receptiveness of their

participation in the IEP meetings. While these areas are generally positive, there is an indication

of a need for further improvement. Over 15% of these parents (99 of 745) do not feel valued as

equal partners of the IEP team. Additionally 95 of 751 parents do not feel supported by their

child’s principal and 112 of 749 responding parents do not feel supported by the central office

staff. When these percentages are applied to the total number of parents of students with

disabilities in the district, administrative and central office support and partnerships become

critical areas for improvement in the future.


Page 129

It will be important for Killeen ISD central office and campus principals to review these data

carefully and consider the implications and the strategies for reversing this perception. In

regards to the question of positive central office support for efforts to educate students with

disabilities, there is a significant number of respondents who disagreed with the statement.

When asked the question concerning parent partnerships, administrators and general education

teachers responded positively that the partnership with parents was working and there were

positive relationships between the school and parents. Special education teachers saw the

parent partnership differently. Over 25% of special education teachers did not agree with these

two statements.

Parent comments on the survey regarding ARD partnerships, campus and central office

communication, provide some explanation for these results. There were thirty of two hundred

twenty-six comments regarding these topics. They include:

• Difficulty in getting response from the campus or central office when parent called

and/or being transferred to another person without listening.

• Not responding or following up in a timely manner to calls from parents.

• A perception that ARD meetings are not personalized, are frequently rushed and

parents are not given sufficient time to voice their views

• When the ARD committee develops a plan the plan is not executed nor is there

follow-up on the agreed upon plan.

• The school often has a pre-prepared plan and is determined to implement the plan

regardless of the parent views.

• General insensitivity to the parent with a perception that the campus is “brushing off”

the parent or has the parent wait while the school gets the ARD committee together.

• A desire for more information to be provided to the parents regarding service options.

• Perception that suggestions from parents go “unheeded” and that the school does

not listen to the parent.

• The staff at all levels, principals, central office and teachers are cold, rude,

disrespectful and not accessible.


Page 130

Information From Parent Survey Comments

The experience of parents of children with disabilities with the educational community is a highly

individual one. Parents of children with disabilities educated in Killeen ISD schools expressed a

full range of perceptions – from highly complementary to somewhat dissatisfied. These different

perceptions were clearly articulated in written responses to parent survey questions. There

were 223 separate written comments responding to the question regarding recommendations

for change. Of the 223 remarks, 22 were essentially positive in nature, suggested that no

change is needed and that Killeen ISD “keep up the good work”. There were 187 comments

from parents regarding the positive aspects of services in Killeen ISD. Of the 187, six

comments were actually negative in nature. In order to provide a balanced report, this section

will describe both of these positions.

From the written comments, it is clear that while some parents in the district have received

excellent support other parents have not. Some parents feel valued as partners in the

education of their child with disabilities; others do not. Some parents have received the

information needed to support their role as an informed decision-maker; others have not. The

role of an evaluator is to listen for the patterns and themes of the positive and the negative

aspects of the parent-school experience and to determine to what extent the concerns are

systemic or isolated. These conclusions will be presented along with recommended steps for

the future.

Parent Responses Regarding Positive Aspects of Services Caring and Sensitive Staff. When asked to describe the positive aspects of services provided to students with disabilities in

Killeen ISD, the majority of the comments related to the level of expertise, caring and

effectiveness and quality of the teachers, therapists and classroom paraprofessionals. Sixty-four

of one hundred eighty-seven (34%) positive responses reflected appreciation for their

sensitivity, care and concern. One parent stated, “ My child is treated as if she was very well

liked in the school which makes her feel special…the same with me as a parent. Having a

school where a main goal is that everyone is respected and treated family-like is a wonderful

feeling”. Another parent expressed appreciation for the “loving and caring atmosphere” noting

that it “helps them learn”. At least 29 parental responses specifically addressed the attention

care and concern of the teachers. One parent stated, “The teachers that work with my son on a


Page 131

daily basis are truly remarkable. They keep me informed about things that are going on with

him and are always at my disposal when I need them. One of his teachers even takes the time

to e-mail me about him.” Frequently parents cited individual personnel by name using positive

remarks and expressing personal appreciation for their assistance and attention to their child’s

needs.

Effective Communication.

At least 10% percent of the positive parent comments related to the quality and frequency of the

communication between home and district. As one parent commented, “I am kept well informed

of everything. They are also willing to listen to my suggestions”. Another parent indicated

appreciation for ongoing communication stating, I appreciate the constant communication

between all parties involved.” Another parent expressed that “when I ask for information it is

usually available. Many of the faculty and administrative staff members are very helpful and

understanding.” Communication from teachers to parent, campus to parent and central office to

parent was cited in these comments as positive aspects.

Programs, Services and Strategies.

More than 15% of the positive parent responses addressed a degree of satisfaction with the

programs and services provided for students with disabilities. The responses ranged from

general comments such as “ I am happy with the academic services my son receives in KISD.”

to specific appreciation for strategies used by teachers.

Approximately ten percent of the comments addressed the inclusion of students with disabilities

in the general education settings or on their home campus. One parent stated, “ I feel my child

benefits from being in an inclusion setting and not being pulled out for resource classes where

he misses what is going on in the regular education classroom.” Another remarked, “Everyone

at the school pulled together and made sure my son felt comfortable with his peers.”

The remainder of the comments and remarks from parent surveys addressed specific

satisfaction with certain services and processes for students with disabilities. There was

mention of services for students in the general education setting and the specific services

offered through the resource classes and content mastery center. There were a few positive


Page 132

remarks about the ARD committee process and the responsiveness of central office

administration and campus-based administration. One stated that the campus administrator

“promptly adjusted as needed to provide adequate resources to meet the special needs of the

visually impaired.”

Parent Responses Regarding Suggestions for Improving Services

The number of responses and categories of response relative to suggestions for improving

services for students with disabilities is somewhat larger than those comments regarding

positive aspects of services. There were approximately 223 survey comments analyzed

regarding suggestions for improvement. Of these, most were positively stated suggestions for

improvement. Some were very negatively stated. The areas most frequently cited were

communication, programs and services, staff sensitivity, teacher and staff quality including the

training and monitoring of staff.

Communication.

Thirty of the 223 (13%) comments addressed concerns regarding the type and level of

communication between school and parent. The comments ranged from general suggestions

that communication needs improvement to specific suggestions in areas of conferences,

progress and accuracy of written communication. One parent stated, “Educators need to be

more contactable, I have tried to get an idea of what my child has done in school and report

cards are not enough to help me understand the classroom goals and my child’s progress.”

Related to this concern were statements regarding follow-up and returning phone calls and a

need for consistent communication from the school.

Another communication area addressed by parents is a need to have better and closer

communication with the teachers regarding the progress of their child. More than one parent

suggested having more teacher-parent conferences that also involve the general education

teacher. As one parent stated, We need better communication with the teachers, the only time

you will hear about problems is when you get a report card or an ARD/IEP.” Closely related to

this area is a need for better communication of student progress. It was stated that, “KISD waits

till the end of year to inform you that your child is failing.” Another remarked, “I just wish I would

have had some progress reports on how my son was doing with his speech. A phone call or


Page 133

letter would have been awesome. The IEP is informative but not the same as a simple phone

call on his progress.”

Staff Sensitivity and Treatment for Students with Disabilities.

There were at least twenty-four comments regarding this topic. This represents thirteen percent

of the comments from parents. Parents suggested that some teachers seem “prejudiced” and

need to be cautioned about referring to students as “retarded” or telling the student they are

disabled. One stated, “You have teachers whom are prejudiced! They need to be educated or

dealt with.” Others expressed concerns regarding staff treating students with respect and

having a better temperament towards students with disabilities. The most frequently mentioned

need regarding sensitivity and treatment was for the school to listen to parents. As one parent

stated, “Listen to the parents, we are the subject matter experts on our children. Long after our

children leave KISD we’ll still be dealing with their issues/problems.” Another stated, “…talk

with the parents, really listen to them, and apply the suggestions that may be offered by the

parents…” Parents requested more timely responses to phone calls and more responsiveness

to their calls. Some noted that meetings on the campus seemed rushed.

Programs and Services.

Over 56 comments specifically addressed the programs and/or services provided to students

with disabilities in Killeen ISD. The suggestions focused primarily on school services, related

services, inclusive practices and assessment and testing.

The highest number of responses addressed issues with the instructional programs and

services delivered on the individual campuses. The area most frequently mentioned was the

need for provision of modifications for students. As one parent stated, “ Modifications need to be

really modifications for that child.” Another parent asked, “Make sure that all teachers modify for

all students that have modifications in place. Follow the modifications not just for one week or

two days…”There were three remarks about students being allowed to go to the content

mastery center for help. And many comments regarding services for students with dyslexia.

There is a high degree of concern from parents regarding the provision of related services of

occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech and language therapy. Many of these issues


Page 134

are addressed in Theme 5 of this report. They include issues with the timeliness of services,

that services promised are not available and that the services are not consistently delivered.

Parents perceive that there is a shortage of staff to deliver the services and that there is a need

to provide more services. They also expressed concern that there is a disagreement between

parents and school service providers regarding the amount of service needed for the student.

They are not pleased with the responses and/or explanations provided by the district.

Issues with testing and assessment practices were mentioned at least 11 times in the parent

survey comments. The primary concerns were having students tested in a timely manner, and

using appropriate assessment instruments. Other issues concerned the communication with

parents regarding the testing results. Parents requested more follow-up and follow-through with

assessment results.

Fifteen comments (26 percent) addressed the participation of students with disabilities with their

non-disabled peers in inclusive classrooms. There were several concerns regarding the district

practice of clustering students with disabilities that prevents the students from attending their

neighborhood schools. These comments also expressed great concern about the number of

times their student had been transferred to another campus. There is a strong interest in

students with disabilities attending classes in the general education setting and an interest in the

general and special education teachers working collaboratively together to assist the child.

Training and Supervision.

Parents suggested in 21 comments reviewed that staff development be provided to

administrators, teachers and related services personnel regarding services for students with

disabilities. Other comments addressed a need to monitor and supervise teachers to ensure

that proper practices are followed. One comment expressed, “I think that KISD needs to look

into training or their staff.”

As noted earlier in this section there were several comments where parents expressed a high

degree of frustration with the district. These comments were very negative and typically

contained more than one area of parental concern. They should be reviewed carefully. They


Page 135

report inappropriate teaching practices, unprofessional administrative practices and insensitive

treatment of students.

As the statements from parents and educators alike illustrate, there are both positive and

negative perceptions of the same issues across the district. It is certain that both groups have

experienced varying emotions as efforts are made to gain services for or to provide services to

students with disabilities. While there are many examples of positive, effective relationships in

which parents and educators are engaged on behalf of students, there are some examples of

difficult, adversarial relationships that escalate negative feelings and encourage negative

outcomes for the student. It is not possible to say that the adversarial relationship is pervasive

and systemic, rather it seems there are individual areas of concern that need to be addressed.

One single issue is clear from all interviews, observations and focus groups: Killeen ISD parents

and the educators of students with disabilities recognize the importance of a positive, dynamic

working relationship that supports the student’s success as he or she moves through the system

and into the community.

Teacher-to-Teacher

Today’s effective educators no longer work in isolation. As more and more students with

special needs receive some or all of their education in general education classrooms with

appropriate support, staff members responsible for teaching and supporting these students find

that their work is best accomplished through collaborative efforts. The ongoing sharing of

information is instrumental in efforts to develop and work toward a collective goal of service

coordination. Through this sharing, educators are more likely to develop and pursue

interventions that support and complement one another and help to ensure that the services

they provide to students are not duplicated and that gaps do not occur. The district provided opportunities for teachers to respond to a faculty survey that addressed

issues in collaboration between general and special education. Also reflected in this summary

are data obtained in the elementary and secondary general education focus groups and through

informal conversations and interviews during the time of campus visits.


Page 136

Table 45. Survey Regarding Collaboration Between General And Special Education Teachers Survey Question

Percent Administrator Agreement




General and special education teachers collaborate to plan and deliver instruction for students with disabilities.

75.7%

57.0%

61.4

61.4%

Special education teachers and administrators are far from agreement on the survey statement

regarding effective collaboration. Forty percent of special education teachers disagree with this

statement and ten percent of the teachers strongly disagree with the statement. The general

education teachers’ percentage of agreement is close to the percentages provided by special

educators.

A review of the statements from the focus groups revealed that there is a teacher feeling of

isolation due to lack of administrative support. Principals, facilitators and speech/language

pathologists reported this.

There were other practices observed by evaluators during the campus visits that indicate

positive collaborative efforts between general and special education teachers. These are

detailed in Theme Three of this report.

There are several areas regarding collaborative efforts between the general and the special

educators in Killeen ISD that were not considered positive, notably, the inconsistency of

collaborative practices within some campuses and from campus to campus. This inconsistency

of practice is a common theme throughout this report. Elementary general educators report

there is no collaboration with special education teachers on a case-by-case basis. Elementary

principals note the dialogue between elementary to middle and high school continues to be a

problem. Lastly, as reported in Table 45 a high percentage of elementary and intermediate

special education teachers indicate limited planning and collaboration between general and

special education teachers.


Page 137

Although there is a high interest in including students with disabilities in the general education

setting, the evaluators saw little evidence of true collaborative teaching. That is, the special

education teachers and general education teachers did not appear to jointly share the

responsibility for instruction in the classroom. Special educators in the classroom were seen

supporting a specific student and often appeared to serve as a teacher assistant. It is also

reported that there are fewer special education teachers working in collaborative arrangements

with general education teachers; rather, classroom paraprofessionals are providing most of the

in-class support.

In many cases the special education teachers appear to work in isolation, seeing only students

with disabilities and rarely, if ever, have contact with the general education teachers. There

were two questions on the faculty survey that addressed collaborative efforts between general

and special education teachers regarding planning for students prior to referral to special

education and the perceived status of special educators. As Table 46 reveals there is a

significant discrepancy between administrator perception and the perception of special

education teachers.

Table 46. Survey Responses of Faculty Regarding the Pre-Referral Process and Status of Special Educators Survey Question

Percentage of Administrator Agreement

Percentage of Special Education Teacher Agreement

Percentage of General Education Teacher Agreement

Percentage of Diagnostician Agreement

Percentage of Total Faculty Agreement

The pre-referral Committee works effectively for providing a variety of strategies for promoting student success.

77.6%

61.5%

69.4%

11.1%

65.4%

Special educators are viewed as faculty members of equal status

93.3%

57.6%

93.3%

44.4%

81.9%


Page 138

Pre-referral committees provide an essential function that promotes early intervention and

assistance for students who are experiencing difficulty and teachers who are having difficulty

with the instruction for students. Effective committees require a high degree of collaboration in

addressing the issues and needs of the teachers and learners. There is a slight discrepancy in

perception between the administrators and the general and special education teachers. When

the data is analyzed by level, 24% of elementary, 24% of intermediate and 27% of high school

faculty disagreed with the statement regarding the pre-referral committee working effectively.

These numbers are highly significant and suggest issues with the collaborative efforts of

participants.

Although 93% of the administrators and general education teachers agree that special

education teachers are viewed as faculty members of equal status, only 57% of special

education teachers and 44 % of diagnosticians agree. This too is very significant and may

negatively impact the formation of quality partnerships and collaborative efforts. When partners

are not viewed as having equal status it is very difficulty to attain true cooperation and trust

needed to share responsibilities and effectively resolve student and instructional issues.

Teacher and Paraprofessional

In Killeen ISD, the use of classroom paraprofessionals is a common practice for supporting

students with disabilities. Classroom paraprofessionals are assigned to support students in the

resource classrooms, in the self-contained settings and in the general education classrooms.

Over the past years, the role of the classroom paraprofessional has changed dramatically to

focus more on providing direct assistance within the instructional area and less on the provision

of clerical and ancillary duties. Classroom paraprofessionals are expected to have greater

knowledge of instructional content, differentiated instructional practices and student

management strategies. While these responsibilities have changed, the classroom assistant

must always work under the supervision of a professional. Whether it is providing services

within the general education classroom or a specialized setting, effective collaboration between

the teacher and classroom assistant is critical.

Faculty survey comments revealed many statements concerning the teacher/paraprofessional

relationships. Frequently mentioned was the significant increase in instructional responsibilities


Page 139

for the paraprofessional. They are covering classes, working with small groups and, in the

words of one teacher “the aides make the classroom run smoothly.” The need for training and

staff development for paraprofessionals was the most frequently cited need in the comments on

the faculty survey.

There were many positive comments regarding the classroom paraprofessionals in Killeen ISD

and many instances where classroom paraprofessionals were observed implementing good

practices with students and teachers. Many of the positive comments were generic in nature

and referred to the paraprofessionals as competent, helpful and caring.

Administrators and teachers report that classroom paraprofessionals are providing more in-

class support than special education teachers. In some cases the classroom assistant is

assigned to provide 1 to 1 assistance for the student. Classroom paraprofessionals were

observed providing instruction to whole groups of students in special education classrooms.

The classroom paraprofessional responsibilities require a high degree of communication and

collaboration to ensure the proper implementation of instruction. Given the vital role that

classroom paraprofessionals play in the education of students with disabilities, it becomes

imperative that collaboration occurs, to some degree, between the special educator and the

classroom assistant and the general educator and the classroom assistant.

For classroom paraprofessionals to serve as an integral part of a general education grade level

or departmental team, ongoing planning and/or collaboration time is needed. Schedule conflicts

and limited work arrangements may make it impossible for the classroom assistant to be a true

team member, creating frustration for both the classroom assistant and the teacher(s) with

whom he or she works.

Administrator and Teacher

The concept of community and the fact that a sense of community evolves from collaboration is

receiving significant attention in professional literature. It is increasingly recognized that the

development of a sense of professional community leads to better outcomes for students and

satisfaction and support for educators. Collaboration is critical at all levels. At a central office

level it can mean the difference between a district that runs effectively and one that does not;


Page 140

one that is perceived supportive of teachers and one that is not; one that promotes successful

instructional strategies for students and one that does not.

Table 47. Faculty Survey Questions Addressing Administrative Support






I feel supported in my efforts to serve students with disabilities by my principal.

86.0% NA

78.2%

84.0%

78.5%

I feel supported in my efforts to serve students with disabilities by the central office staff.

83.3% 69.8%

54.2%

65.8%

62.8%

As the table reveals there is a significantly low level of agreement among campus

administrators, special education and general education teachers regarding support from central

office staff. When the results include paraprofessionals, diagnosticians and speech language

pathologists the level of agreement is lower for diagnosticians (33%), and speech/language

pathologists (44.4%) and paraprofessionals (60.7%) compared to the total faculty response.

There were many statements concerning central administrative support noted in the faculty

surveys and focus group comments. There were also several areas noted through focus group

and survey comments regarding difficulties with administrative support and collaboration.

Comments in the survey indicated issues regarding a need for greater follow-up, support with

financial matters and more focus on students and less focus on litigation. Also mentioned were

specific needs for greater collaboration and consistency in communication. As one administrator

stated a change needed is, “Create a better information flow from the top down. There are few

policies written down, so much guidance is word of mouth. There are too many inconsistencies

from campus to campus in the way we do business.”


Page 141

There is a perception that some of the central leaders do not have sufficient knowledge and

expertise to properly supervise practices at the campus level. There were several comments

regarding the professional behavior of central office staff. Several comments named

individuals. The central office is viewed as more reactive than proactive.

There were also several positive comments regarding central office support. There seems to be

an appreciation for the director and a belief that she is “moving us forward” and “in the right

direction”. Several comments cited the responsiveness of the central office stating they are “just

a phone call away.” The decision to undertake this formal evaluation is viewed as a positive

commitment from central office to identify issues and promote proactive, positive solutions to the

issues.

Focus Group Comments Regarding Collaboration.

The following table shows the comments provided by focus group participants relative to this

section on Collaborative Relationships. The table lists each comment category that emerged

relative to the broad topical area and indicates the specific stakeholder groups in which each

comment was provided.

Table 48. Focus Group Comments Regarding Collaboration

Theme Issues

Stee

ring

Com

mitt

ee

Supe

rinte

n.

Cou

ncil

Elem

. Pr

inci

pals

Se

c. Pr

inci

pals

D

iagn

ostic

ians

Faci

litat

ors

Spec

ialis

ts,

Rela

ted

Srv

SLPs

Collaboration Teacher feeling isolation due to lack of administrative support and to parental expectations/pressure

X X X X X 5

Collaboration Trust issues between campuses and special education central office

X X X 3

Collaboration Deaf education teachers do not feel supported by special education central office

X 1


Page 142

In reviewing the comments from the various stakeholders through the focus groups, interviews

and surveys as well as observations during the campus visits, it is clearly evident that the district

sees a need for more positive communication and desires consistency in communication and

collaborative relationships across all groups. The following is a summary of the factors

pertaining to collaboration impacting the quality of services for students with disabilities in

Killeen ISD:

• A majority of parents believe the district provides quality services for students with

disabilities and that the children are accepted as full members of the student body.

• More than eighteen percent of parents do not agree that the faculty shares

responsibility for all students.

• A majority of parents are satisfied with the instructional strategies, accommodations

and modifications provided by teachers.

• A high percentage of parents attend the ARD committee meetings.

• Most parents and administrators agree they are viewed as equal partners in the ARD

process.

• A significant number of special education teachers do not agree that parents are

equal partners in the ARD process.

• The majority of parents feel supported by central office and campus administrators,

yet a significant number do not.

• Parents’ comments expressed a full range of perceptions from highly complementary

to seriously dissatisfied.

• A high number of parents cited caring and sensitivity of staff as a positive feature in

KISD and a high percentage of parents reported sensitivity and treatment by staff as

a negative feature.

• Quality and frequency of communication with parents was viewed as positive.

• Some parents are concerned with communication from central office and their child’s

campus, wanting a more timely response and a proactive approach.

• Parents also want more participation of students with disabilities in inclusive settings

and better supervision and training of staff.

• Parents express a degree of dissatisfaction with the provision of related services and

communication regarding these services.


Page 143

• A significant number of parents expressed a high degree of frustration with the

district.

• There is inconsistency in collaboration in all sub groups (teacher-teacher and

administration to teacher).

• Approximately three-fourths of administrators agree that general and special

education teachers collaborate to plan and deliver instruction for students with

disabilities, less than two-thirds of special education teachers and general education

teachers agree.

• Collaborative teaching practices and common planning time is limited.

• A significant number of special education teachers at each level (elementary,

intermediate and high school) do not view themselves as faculty members of equal

status.

• The pre-referral committee is viewed as an ineffective practice by 23% of

administrators. Only 61% of special education teachers and 69% of general

education teachers view the pre-referral committee as effective.

• Faculties do not view the central office support as favorable regarding availability for

questions, responsiveness, knowledge and expertise.

Recommendations

1. Involve parents in a review of the evaluation results and in the final action planning

stages. Offer a special invitation for the participants of the parent surveys to receive

an in-depth overview in recognition of their assistance in the evaluation process and

as an opportunity to gain their recommendations regarding the proposed action

steps.

2. Create a program improvement steering committee that includes parents,

administrators, general and special education teachers and students in the process.

Involve them in a review of the evaluation results. This would foster better

longitudinal planning and compatible service delivery options within area.

3. Encourage each campus to conduct an informal review of the current ARD process

that will focus on three phases:


Page 144

a. All activities leading up to the actual ARD meeting, both formal and informal;

b. All activities that occur during the ARD meeting, including the arrival of

parents/guardians; and

c. All activities following the completion of the ARD meeting, including providing

all parties with implementation responsibility with information needed,

including required accommodations and modifications and end-of-meeting

feedback regarding the need to improve any aspect of the process or the

product (the IEP).

4. Encourage each campus to conduct a review of staff development needs, both for

parents and for staff in the following four broad areas:

a. Working collaboratively toward a common goal, including both “results” and

“relationships”;

b. Listening carefully for the purpose of understanding both content and emotion

expressed;

c. Developing meeting leading skills to assure that each ARD meeting runs

smoothly, each member understands his or her role and compliance

standards are met;

d. Assuring that all members understand their role and the problem solving

approaches so that “calls to central office” are minimized and the campus

members are empowered and comfortable in representing the school’s

recommendations for services and support that will meet the needs of the

student.

5. Create a simple planning format so that each campus can design a plan for making

all parents feel welcome in their school and their meetings. Consider making this an

adjunct to the campus improvement plan.

6. Implement a parent communication process that emphasizes the value of positive

initial contacts with parents, recognizing that a parent-teacher relationship should not

begin with or revolve around a specific problem, such as a discipline issue or missing

homework.


Page 145

7. Use a parent survey that is completed at the conclusion of ARD meetings to provide

the district with a quantifiable measure of positive parent-school relationships.

Provide these data to each campus.

8. Review the process for central office-to-campus-to-teacher communication.

Consider developing a handbook of information on key critical topics on special

education with examples for teachers. This handbook can serve as the foundation or

reference document for all staff.

9. Establish a system for responding to questions from campus to central office that is

shared within the central office.

10. Develop or revise a web page for the special education staff. Have a teacher page,

parent page, links to other resources and information. This site could be a major

source for information dissemination and improve the consistency of information

sharing.

11. Hold at least two meetings with special education teachers regarding policies,

procedures and guidelines in view of the recent changes in NCLB and the recent re-

authorization of the IDEA. Prior to the meeting provide the information in writing so

the focus of the meeting is not to give information but to clarify questions and

demonstrate the implications of the information for the teacher, the students and

classroom practices.

12. Create optional study groups at the school. Areas of interest might include the

general topics of collaboration, teaming, communication and in-class support options

such as co-teaching and peer tutoring and other pertinent topics. These groups

could meet at lunch or before or after school with the goal of clarifying ideas and

looking for new strategies. A system could be adopted, such as e-mail, by which

other staff members could be updated with a brief summary.


Page 146

13. Provide opportunities for professionals to trade jobs for short periods of time. This

type of activity builds understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities. When

this kind of strategy is used, educators have renewed respect for one another and

increased respect contributes to strong collaboration.

14. Create a more formalized approach to collaboration. Consider the formation of

various student-centered service delivery teams to assist teachers in accommodating

students with behavioral or learning difficulties in their classrooms. These teams,

which focus largely on planning for, implementing and evaluating the ongoing

delivery of educational services to students with disabilities include co-teaching

teams, teaching teams and grade-level teams. It is imperative that a training

component be included so that teachers clearly understand their roles and

responsibilities.

15. Assign special educators to grade-level or content-level teams and ensure that they

have built into their schedules the same planning time as their counterparts.

16. Provide special educators with copies of texts and teacher’s editions of general

education curriculum with which they typically work. This provides a common

conversation point for teachers to begin planning.

17. Enable the special educator to work in the general education classroom by

rescheduling pullout services and allowing time throughout the day for in-class

support.

18. When classroom paraprofessionals go into classrooms to provide support, everyone

involved (general education teacher, special education teacher and classroom

assistant) should review the parameters of the classroom assistant’s roles and

responsibilities. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of a checklist regarding delineation


Page 147

of the responsibilities of the teacher, the classroom assistant and their shared

responsibilities.

19. Create time in the schedule, at least weekly if not more often, for professional staff to

collaborate with classroom paraprofessionals.

20. Create formal opportunities for collaboration by providing scheduled time for sharing

ideas and activities across content areas and grade levels.

21. Provide opportunities for teachers to observe one another. Facilitate the logistics

involved to make it easy to occur.

22. Although co-teaching is an increasingly popular strategy and one of the fastest

growing inclusive school practices, the quality of what occurs in co-taught classes

vary considerably. It is therefore critical that administrators and co-teaching partners

receive explicit training in co-teaching prior to implementation.

23. Review current literature discussing various options for creating shared planning

time. The following are excellent resources: Snell, Martha and Janney, Rachel.

Collaborative Teaming (2000). Brookes Publishing: Maryland; DeBoer, Anita.

Working Together: The Art of Consulting and Communicating (1995). Sopris West:

Longmont, CO.: Rainforth, Beverly and York-Barr, Jennifer. Collaborative Teams for

Students with Severe Disabilities (1997). Brooks Publishing: Maryland

24. Create a system for providing feedback to teachers and administrators in a timely

manner and advise the district on what the procedure will be, for example, when can

they expect a response, how will the response be delivered, what should they do if

they do not get a response.


Page 148

Conclusion The evaluation of services for students with disabilities in Killeen ISD represents an open and

honest inquiry into the status of present services and the perceptions of multiple stakeholders.

This evaluation reviewed both quantitative and qualitative data and proposed recommendations

that reflected the views of the stakeholders, as well as the views of the evaluation team. The

recommendations are comprehensive and will require time, effort, commitment and resources in

order to be fully and appropriately implemented.

As this evaluation report is completed, three major themes are apparent. They are: (a) an

overriding feeling of care and concern for students, the unique nature of serving military families

who are deployed to war zones and a commitment to improvement; (b) significantly inconsistent

practices across classrooms and campuses regarding students with disabilities resulting in a

parallel rather than a unified system; and, (c) a sincere openness and desire for more support,

knowledge, training and resources that will enable educators and parents to assist students

resulting in better outcomes for all. It will require the system to be open to new strategies, new

processes and expanded outcomes for students.

There is a range of opinion and philosophy regarding services for students with disabilities in

Killeen ISD, among educators and parents. There are educators and parents who believe that a

stronger effort, clearer communications, higher expectations, and a more consistent delivery of

services for students with disabilities are not only highly desirable, but possible. When using a

framework of research-based, realistic and proven practices, the evaluation team determined

that changes are needed in order to create this consistency. Although there are examples of

effective, even cutting-edge practices among the Killeen ISD schools, there are also many

examples of a separate curriculum, separate delivery and separate status for special education

students and educators.

The recommendations contained in this report do not call for immediate change but for changes

made over time with thought, careful planning and with a systematic approach. The evaluators

believe that the surest way to condemn any ambitious change process is to schedule too many


Page 149

changes in a very short time frame. For this reason, the recommendations listed should be

categorized, prioritized and formalized in a plan of action over a three- to five-year time frame.

The Killeen Independent School District is well recognized as one in which excellence in all

things is strongly encouraged. Throughout this report, we have described the positive features

that currently exist to support the changes needed. Focus on the many accomplishments of the

district, on the improvements still needed, on the creation of a clear vision that includes all

students and their families and on the strategies needed to align practices at the district, area,

campus, and classroom level with this vision. The district clearly possesses the capacity to

accomplish these priorities!