SKaURQ PXbOLc ScKRROV - Sharon Schools€¦ · SaURQ PbOLc ScKRROV SecLaO EdXcaWLRQ ReYLeZ PbOLc CRQVXOWLQJ GURXS, IQc. 4 Table of FigXUeV E[KLbLW 1. BeIRUe a VWXdeQW LV UeIeUUed

Sharon Public Schools Special Education Review

Public Consulting Group, Inc. 0


February 2020



Table of Contents I. Purpose of the Study and Methodology ...................................................................................... 9

Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 9 Data and Document Analysis .................................................................................................................. 9 Focus Groups and Interviews ............................................................................................................... 10 Student Shadowing Observations ......................................................................................................... 11 Staff and Parent/Family Surveys .......................................................................................................... 12 Research and Practice Literature.......................................................................................................... 13

PCG Foundational Approach .............................................................................................................. 13 Members of the PCG Team ................................................................................................................ 15

II. Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 16 Terminology ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Explanation of MTSS, IDEA, and Section 504 .................................................................................... 18

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) ............................................................................................. 18 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ................................................................................. 18 Inclusive Education ............................................................................................................................... 19 Section 504 ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Intersection between Section 504 and IDEA ......................................................................................... 20 Relationship between MTSS Framework, Section 504 Services & IDEA Special Education ................ 21

III. Multi-tiered System of Supports and Referral Practices ........................................................ 23 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 23 MTSS Framework ............................................................................................................................... 23 Massachusetts Guidance .................................................................................................................... 24 MTSS District Practices ...................................................................................................................... 25 Tier 1 Core Instruction and Positive Behavior Supports ..................................................................... 26

Core Curriculum .................................................................................................................................... 26 Positive Behavior Supports ................................................................................................................... 26

Tier 2 and 3 Interventions ................................................................................................................... 27 Data Use and Progress Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 27

IV. Special Education Referral, Eligibility and Incidence Rates .................................................. 29 Referral and Eligibility Practices ......................................................................................................... 29

Special Education Referral ................................................................................................................... 29 Special Education Eligibility .................................................................................................................. 30

District Practices for Referral .............................................................................................................. 33 Section 504 Eligibility ............................................................................................................................ 35 English Learners ................................................................................................................................... 35 Incidence Rates .................................................................................................................................... 36



Disproportionate Representation in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity ......................................... 41 Risk Ratios by Race/Ethnicity and Disability ......................................................................................... 42 Incidence Rates by Race/Ethnicity in Early Childhood Settings ............................................................ 45

V. Special Education Service Delivery .......................................................................................... 46 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 46 State Performance Plan (SPP) and Results Driven Accountability (RDA) ......................................... 47

Massachusetts Public School Monitoring .............................................................................................. 48 Academic Optimism and Growth Mindset ........................................................................................... 48 Early Childhood ................................................................................................................................... 51

Early Childhood Educational Settings ................................................................................................... 52 Achievement Outcomes for Preschool Students with IEPs ................................................................... 52 Early Childhood Services ...................................................................................................................... 54

School-Age Programming ................................................................................................................... 55 Effective Teaching and Maximized Learning in the Least Restrictive Environment .............................. 56 Course Participation and Achievement Outcomes ................................................................................ 75 Restraint and Seclusion ........................................................................................................................ 81 Grade and School Level Transitions ..................................................................................................... 82 Post-Secondary Transition .................................................................................................................... 82 Graduation and Drop-Out Rates ........................................................................................................... 84

Implementation of 504 Supports and Services ................................................................................... 86 Characteristics of Students with 504 Plans ........................................................................................... 87

Student Experience ............................................................................................................................. 89 School Culture and Climate .................................................................................................................. 89 Self-Advocacy ....................................................................................................................................... 91 Academic Experience ........................................................................................................................... 91

VI. District Organization and Operations ...................................................................................... 92 Strategic Initiatives .............................................................................................................................. 92

Initiatives for SY 2019-2020 .................................................................................................................. 92 Completed Initiatives for SY 2018-2019 ................................................................................................ 93 Initiatives for SY 2020-2022 .................................................................................................................. 93 Initiatives for SY 2019-2020 .................................................................................................................. 93 Completed Initiatives for SY 2018-2019 ................................................................................................ 93 Initiatives for SY 2020-2022 .................................................................................................................. 93 Initiatives for SY 2019-2020 .................................................................................................................. 93 Significant Progress Initiatives for SY 2018-2019 ................................................................................. 94 Initiatives for SY 2019-2020 .................................................................................................................. 94 Completed Initiatives for SY 2018-2019 ................................................................................................ 94 Initiatives for SY 2020-2022 .................................................................................................................. 94



Organization and Human Capital ........................................................................................................ 94 Retention and Recruitment ................................................................................................................... 94 Special Education Support to Schools .................................................................................................. 95 Special Education and Related Services Staffing Ratios and Allocations ............................................. 96

METCO Program ................................................................................................................................ 99 Professional Development .................................................................................................................. 99

District Practices ................................................................................................................................. 100 Transportation ................................................................................................................................... 105 Finance ............................................................................................................................................. 105

District Special Education Expenditures ............................................................................................. 106 Medicaid Reimbursement ................................................................................................................... 107 Sharon Education Foundation ............................................................................................................ 107

Data and Technology Use ................................................................................................................ 108 Written Policies and Guidance .......................................................................................................... 108

VII. Parent and Family Engagement ............................................................................................ 109 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 109 Information and Communication ....................................................................................................... 109 Parent Voice...................................................................................................................................... 111

VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................... 118

IX. Appendix................................................................................................................................. 125 A. Data by School ............................................................................................................................. 125 B. SPS Staffing Ratios Compared to Other Districts ........................................................................ 126 C. Survey Protocols .......................................................................................................................... 129



Table of Figures Exhibit 1. Before a student is referred for special education, every attempt is made to meet the student's needs through general education interventions. ......................................................................................... 28 Exhibit 2. My school(s) uses the MTSS framework with fidelity.................................................................. 28 Exhibit 3. Number of SPS Students (age 6-21) Referred for Special Education, Evaluated, and Found Eligible, 2018-19 ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Exhibit 4. Number of Students Referred for Special Education by Grade, 2018-19 ................................... 30 Exhibit 5. Percentage of SPS Students (ages 6-21) Found Eligible for Special Education by Disability, 2018-19 ....................................................................................................................................................... 31 Exhibit 6. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) Found Eligible for Special Education by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19 ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 7. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) Found Eligible for Special Education by English Learner Status, 2018-19 ............................................................................................................................. 33 Exhibit 8. Insufficient general education reading intervention support is a major reason for special education referrals in this school/district. .................................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 9. Insufficient general education math intervention support is a major reason for special education referrals in this school/district. ..................................................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 10. Insufficient general education positive behavior support is a major reason for special education referrals in this school/district. ..................................................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 11. Once eligible for special education, the behavioral supports necessary to meet individual student needs are available at my school(s). .............................................................................................. 35 Exhibit 12. Did SPS staff explain to you why your child needed special education services in a way that you were able to understand? ..................................................................................................................... 35 Exhibit 13. Prior to a referral for special education, the impact of a child’s native language on academic performance or behavior is considered. ...................................................................................................... 36 Exhibit 14. Percentage of SPS Students with IEPs Compared to State and National Incidence Rates (Ages 6-21), 2016-17 to 2017-18 ................................................................................................................ 36 Exhibit 15. SPS IEP Rates Compared to Other Massachusetts School Districts and State (ages 6-21), 2018-19 ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 16. Percentage of SPS SwD by Disability Area Compared to State and Nation (ages 6-21), 2018-19 ................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 17. Percent of SPS Male vs. Female Students with IEPs (Age 6-21), 2018-19 ............................. 38 Exhibit 18. Percent of SPS Male vs. Female Students with IEPs (Age 6-21) by Disability, 2018-19 ......... 39 Exhibit 19. Percent of SPS Students with IEPs (Age 6-21) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19 ............................ 39 Exhibit 20. Percent of SPS Students with and without IEPs (age 6-21) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19 ......... 40 Exhibit 21. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) by Disability Area and Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19 ....... 41 Exhibit 22. Risk Ratios by Race/Ethnicity and Disability, 2018-19 ............................................................. 44 Exhibit 23. Percent of SPS Students with IEPs (Age 3-5) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19 .............................. 45 Exhibit 24. The general education teaching staff have high expectations for students with disabilities. .... 50 Exhibit 25. The special education teaching staff, including related service providers, have high expectations for students with disabilities. .................................................................................................. 50 Exhibit 26. School administrators have high expectations for students with disabilities. ........................... 51 Exhibit 27. My child’s teachers have high expectations for my child. ......................................................... 51 Exhibit 28. Percentage of Students (Age 3-5) by Educational Setting for SPS & State SPP Targets, 2015-16 to 2017-18 .............................................................................................................................................. 52 Exhibit 29. Preschool Outcomes: Indicator 7a- Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships). SPS and State Targets, 2015-16......................................................................................... 53 Exhibit 30. Preschool Outcomes: Indicator 7b- Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy). SPS and State Targets, 2015-16 ............................... 53 Exhibit 31. Preschool Outcomes: Indicator 7c- Use of appropriate behavior to meet their needs. SPS and State Targets, SPS and State Targets, 2015-16 ........................................................................................ 54



Exhibit 32. Early Childhood Services, 2018-19 ........................................................................................... 54 Exhibit 33. Percentage of Students (Age 6-21) by Educational Setting for SPS & State SPP Targets, 2015-16 to 2017-18 ..................................................................................................................................... 57 Exhibit 34. Percentage of Students by Educational Setting (Age 6-21) for Comparable Districts, 2017-18 .................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Exhibit 35. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) by Disability Area and Educational Setting, 2018-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Exhibit 36. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with SLD, OHI, and ED by Educational Setting, 2018-19 ................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Exhibit 37. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with Autism, ID, and SLI by Educational Setting, 2018-19 ....................................................................................................................................................... 60 Exhibit 38. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with Disabilities by Disability in Separate Settings, 2018-19 ....................................................................................................................................................... 61 Exhibit 39. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with Disabilities by Separate Setting, 2018-19 ........ 62 Exhibit 40. Percentage of SPS Students with Disabilities (Age 6-21) by Race and Educational Setting, 2018-19 ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 Exhibit 41. IEP teams discuss instruction and support in general education classes to the maximum extent possible (LRE) in making service recommendations for students with disabilities. ......................... 63 Exhibit 42. At your child’s most recent IEP meeting, did the team discuss receiving special education services in the general education class to the maximum extent appropriate? ........................................... 63 Exhibit 43. The IEP process involves general and special educators as partners when making recommendations. ....................................................................................................................................... 66 Exhibit 44. There is sufficient communication between general and special educators about the needs and progress of students with IEPs. ........................................................................................................... 66 Exhibit 45. There is sufficient communication between general/ special educators, and related services staff (OTs, Speech/Language, etc.) about the needs and progress of students with IEPs. ....................... 66 Exhibit 46. Paraprofessionals at my school(s) are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students with IEPs. ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Exhibit 47. Special education teachers at my school are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students with IEPs. .................................................................................................................. 67 Exhibit 48. Related Service providers (OT, PT, Speech Therapists) at my school are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students with IEPs. ............................................................................. 68 Exhibit 49. To your knowledge, is your child's IEP being implemented as written? ................................... 68 Exhibit 50. My child’s general education teachers are aware of my child’s learning needs. ...................... 68 Exhibit 51. My child’s special education teachers are aware of my child's learning needs. ....................... 69 Exhibit 52. Special education staff are skilled in providing the services and support my child needs........ 69 Exhibit 53. I feel my child’s academic program is preparing my child effectively for the future. ................. 69 Exhibit 54. I am satisfied with my child’s overall special education services. ............................................. 69 Exhibit 55. I am satisfied with my child’s overall academic progress in school. ......................................... 70 Exhibit 56. I am a valued member of the IEP team. ................................................................................... 70 Exhibit 57. I feel comfortable asking questions and expressing concerns at IEP meetings. ...................... 70 Exhibit 58. IEP meetings are run efficiently and effectively, with enough time for all parties to share and discuss all needed information, and to make decisions. ............................................................................. 71 Exhibit 59. Students’ IEP progress on goals are documented and reported to parents. ............................ 71 Exhibit 60. Student progress toward IEP goals is analyzed and discussed regularly. ............................... 71 Exhibit 61. Students with disabilities at my school(s) are offered a continuum of services that meet their needs. .......................................................................................................................................................... 74 Exhibit 62. The special education program/services at my school(s) are of high quality. .......................... 75 Exhibit 63. Students Enrolled in Advanced Courses, by Subject (SY2018-2019) ...................................... 76 Exhibit 64. Students Enrolled in Advanced Placement Courses, SY2018-2019 ........................................ 76 Exhibit 65. Students Enrolled in Advanced Placement Courses, SY2018-2019 ........................................ 77 Exhibit 66. Grade 4 Reading, 2016-17 to 2018-19 ..................................................................................... 78



Exhibit 67. Grade 8 Reading, 2016-17 to 2018-19 ..................................................................................... 79 Exhibit 68. Grade 10 Reading, 2016-17 to 2018-19 ................................................................................... 79 Exhibit 69. Grade 4 Math, 2016-17 to 2018-19 ........................................................................................... 80 Exhibit 70. Grade 8 Math, 2016-17 to 2018-19 ........................................................................................... 80 Exhibit 71. Planning effective services and activities for post-secondary transition begins for students at age 14 at my school(s). ............................................................................................................................... 83 Exhibit 72. Has the team developed individualized goals related to postsecondary education, employment, independent living, and community participation, as appropriate? ....................................... 83 Exhibit 73. Did the IEP team discuss transition to adulthood during the IEP meeting, e.g., career interests? ..................................................................................................................................................... 83 Exhibit 74. Indicator 14. Postsecondary Outcomes .................................................................................... 84 Exhibit 75. Percent of SPS and State Students with and without an IEP Graduating from High School in 2014-18 ....................................................................................................................................................... 84 Exhibit 76. SPS Graduation Rate for Students with IEPs and Comparable Districts, 2018 ....................... 85 Exhibit 77. Dropout Rate of Students with IEPs Compared to Students without IEPs and State Averages, 2015-18 ....................................................................................................................................................... 85 Exhibit 78. SPS Dropout Rate for Students with IEPs and Comparable Districts, 2018 ............................ 86 Exhibit 79. Number of Students with 504 Plans by Grade, 2017-18 .......................................................... 87 Exhibit 80. Percent of SPS Male vs. Female Students with 504s, 2018-19 ............................................... 88 Exhibit 81. Percent of SPS Students with 504 Plans by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19 ...................................... 88 Exhibit 82. Percent of SPS Students with and without 504 Plans (Ages 6-21) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19 .................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Exhibit 83. Students with disabilities at my school(s) have the opportunity to participate in school-sponsored activities such as assemblies, field trips, clubs, and sports. ..................................................... 90 Exhibit 84. Students with disabilities at my school(s) are treated with respect by school staff and students. .................................................................................................................................................................... 90 Exhibit 85. My child has the opportunity to participate in school-sponsored activities such as assemblies, field trips, clubs, and sporting events. ......................................................................................................... 91 Exhibit 86. Comparable District Staffing Ratios by Position ....................................................................... 97 Exhibit 87. Average Number Students with IEPs for Each Special Educator and Paraprofessionals/Instructional Assistants ................................................................................................. 97 Exhibit 88. Average Number Students with IEPs for Each Related Service Provider ................................ 98 Exhibit 89. Professional learning offerings I have attended at SPS enable me to better support teaching/learning of students with IEPs. ................................................................................................... 102 Exhibit 90. General education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for providing students with disabilities with instruction aligned with the curriculum. ...................................... 102 Exhibit 91. Special education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for providing students with disabilities with instruction aligned with the curriculum. ...................................... 103 Exhibit 92. General education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for addressing the social/emotional needs of students with disabilities in their classes. ............................... 103 Exhibit 93. Special education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for addressing the social/emotional needs of students with disabilities in their classes. ............................... 104 Exhibit 94. Instructional Assistants need more professional learning opportunities on supporting students in general education classes. .................................................................................................................... 104 Exhibit 95. Instructional Assistants need more professional learning opportunities on supporting students in special education classes...................................................................................................................... 105 Exhibit 96. Nine-Year Comparison of Total SPS Special Education Cost and Total Special Education Enrollment ................................................................................................................................................. 106 Exhibit 97. SPS Tuition and Contracted Services Spending as a Percentage of Special Education Expenditures, 2010-11 to 2018-19 ............................................................................................................ 107 Exhibit 98. SPS Special Education Spending as a Percentage of Total Budget, 2010-11 to 2018-19 .... 107



Exhibit 99. In the past year, have you attended parent training or information sessions offered by SPS? .................................................................................................................................................................. 110 Exhibit 100. If yes, was the parent training you attended helpful?............................................................ 111 Exhibit 101. In planning my child’s most recent IEP, I felt I was a valued member of the IEP team, and my opinion was respected. ............................................................................................................................. 111 Exhibit 102. Teachers/school staff communicate effectively with me. ...................................................... 112 Exhibit 103. School staff respond to my concerns in a reasonable period of time. .................................. 112 Exhibit 104. I feel comfortable asking questions and expressing concerns at IEP meetings. .................. 112 Exhibit 105. I understand what is discussed at IEP meetings. ................................................................. 112 Exhibit 106. The information I provided about my child was considered when planning and writing his/her most recent IEP. ........................................................................................................................................ 113 Exhibit 107. I am getting adequate information about my child’s performance. ....................................... 113 Exhibit 108. My child’s progress report effectively communicates positive progress and/or lack of progress. ................................................................................................................................................... 113



Sharon Public Schools Special Education Review December 2019 (draft)

Acknowledgements

The PCG team thanks the many individuals who contributed to this review of SPS’s services for students with disabilities. Their efforts were critical to our ability to obtain a broad and detailed understanding of the system so that we could present the best possible proposals for improving special education and related services for SPS’s students. This review would not have been possible without the support of SPS staff across many offices. The project team organized all components of the data collection efforts, provided all the documents and data we needed in order to do our work, and organized the logistics for our onsite data collection activities. PCG also thanks the many SPS staff members with whom we met. Their commitment to the work they do for students each day was evident through their comments and earnest feedback. They work passionately to support students with disabilities and ensure SPS serves these students in the best possible manner.

Public Consulting Group, Inc.



I. Purpose of the Study and Methodology Sharon Public Schools (SPS) contracted with the Public Consulting Group, Inc. (PCG) to provide a comprehensive assessment of services to students with disabilities. This report describes the current state of the special education program and is designed to guide SPS toward continuous improvement. It examines the following evaluation questions:

1. Evaluation and Identification Practices. How, and to what extent, does SPS evaluate and identify students who may require additional supports, services, interventions, and accommodations?

2. Delivery of Services, Accommodations, and Instruction. How, and to what extent, does SPS provide services, accommodations, and instruction for students based on identification of needed services?

3. Resource Allocation. How, and to what extent, are resources organized to consistently implement the processes for: a) Evaluating and identifying b) Providing services, accommodations, and instruction?

4. Academic Rigor and Engagement. How, and to what extent, are students identified with an IEP challenged and engaged?

5. Access and Equity. How, and to what extent, do students with disabilities have the opportunity to engage in the school experience equitably?

6. High Quality Staff. How, and to what extent, are students with disabilities serviced by high-quality staff and service providers across all settings?

7. Parents and Family Engagement. How, and to what extent, is support available for parents and families of students with disabilities?

All areas of the report are focused on improving instructional outcomes and providing an inclusive culture for students with disabilities.

Methodology Over the course of Fall 2019, PCG conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of IEP services for students.

The findings and recommendations related to programs, policies, and practices resulted from a comprehensive analysis of several data sources. Sources included 1) Data and Document Analysis, 2) Focus Groups and Interviews, 3) Student Shadowing, 4) Staff and Parent Surveys. These components drew from Research and Practice Literature to inform the findings and recommendations. PCG used publicly available achievement and financial information to compare key SPS statistics against local district/division, state, and national data. Details of each data source are included below.

Data and Document Analysis Population Trends, Programs, and Achievement and Outcomes Analysis

Population and program placement trends are significant equity indicators of the extent to which there is overrepresentation of any group. They also provide important information about the distribution of placements and services, and access to the least restrictive environment. Population trends were analyzed to show, where possible, changes over time by grade level/age, race/ethnicity, gender, disability categories, level of service, and combinations of variables. Student performance data were analyzed to provide a comparative examination of performance by both students with and without disabilities.

Data included in the report also compare students with IEPs to their nondisabled peers on several indicators where publicly available data made comparisons possible.



Staffing Analysis

In partnership with the Council of the Great City Schools, PCG has compiled special education staffing ratios from approximately 70 school districts (very large to very small) nationwide. SPS’s staffing ratios were incorporated into these data to consider SPS staffing information in a broader context. Staffing comparison data have been used to evaluate the extent to which staff roles, responsibilities, and training are aligned to SPS’s expectations.

Document Review PCG requested written documents related to district and school structures, programs, policies, and practices. Requested documents were in the following general categories:

x Organizational structure, staffing, and resource allocation x Description of academic programs, services, interventions, and activities x Documents regarding instruction and professional learning x District procedures and guides, including improvement plans x Compliance and due process complaints x Fiscal information x State reports x Measures concerning accountability

Throughout the report, PCG has used the most current data available. All national data are from the 2017-18 school year, which is the most up-to-date publicly available data set. In cases where comparisons are made to national data, 2017-18 SPS and state data are used. For data displays that only include SPS information, 2018-19 data are used. These data were provided to PCG in September 2019 and represent the student body at the end of the previous school year.

Focus Groups and Interviews In order to gain an understanding of how programs for students with disabilities operate broadly within SPS, organizational focus groups and interviews were designed to include a range of stakeholders. Nearly 100 stakeholders participated.

Focus groups generally consisted of 8-12 participants, while interviews ranged from 1-3 participants. Except in rare circumstances, supervisors did not participate in the same focus group or interview sessions with their staff members, in order to give all staff an opportunity to speak candidly and honestly. Most focus groups occurred in person over a two-day time period in October 2019. Due to scheduling conflicts, some interviews were conducted over the phone or were conducted in person during a subsequent onsite time.

SPS focus groups and interviews included a variety of central office staff, school-based staff, family and student participants. Central office staff included representatives from the following departments/offices:

x Office of the Superintendent x Office of Student Services x Office of Business and Finance x Office of METCO x Department of Health Services x Department of Maintenance and Operations x Department of Transportation x Department of Libraries and Technology



Field based staff included representatives from the following groups:

x School Administrators x Special Education Teachers x General Education Teachers x Related Service Providers x School Psychologists x Counselors x Nurses

Family and Community representatives included:

x Sharon Special Education Parent Advisory Committee (SSEPAC) x Parents/Families x School Committee Members

Students

x Middle school students with IEPs x High school students with IEPs

PCG worked closely with SPS to determine the best outreach and communication methods for focus group and interview participation. PCG provided a sample schedule and list of positions required to participate. In order to ensure adequate and wide-ranging participation from across the organization, SPS coordinated with school principals and central office leadership.

Student focus groups were held at the both the middle and high schools. Student participants were selected by the schools with guidance from the Office of Special Education. In total, we spoke with 20 students with IEPs. The goal of the session was to better understand the typical student experience. As such, focus group questions did not focus on specific disabilities nor did PCG access student records as part of these conversations.

Within this report, no focus group or interview participants are personally referred to, and no quotation is attributed to an individual. In some cases, position titles are referenced when necessary for contextual reasons.

Student Shadowing Observations In October 2019, PCG conducted Student Shadowing Observations in all district schools. Students were each shadowed for one day. Approximately 3-5 students per school were shadowed across a range of settings. The areas of observation included: Safe and Accessible Environment; Functions and Elements of Explicit Instruction; and Specially Designed Instruction.

The goal of the Student Shadowing was two-fold:

x To document, for each student, the access that he/she had to high quality instruction, the fidelity of IEP implementation, the continuity of services, and the overall experience as a student receiving special education services.

x To assess the degree to which the student’s schedule is followed, how the student receives his/her services, how lessons are differentiated, and how integrated the student is within the larger school environment (e.g., lunchroom, recess, elective classes).

Students were selected at random by PCG and included a wide cross-section of grades/ages, gender, and disability categories. SPS staff provided electronic copies of each student’s most recent IEP as well as students’ schedules to PCG in advance of each visit.



Staff and Parent/Family Surveys An online survey process was implemented to collect data on stakeholder perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of services for students with disabilities and those requiring intervention supports. PCG collaborated with SPS to disseminate two surveys:

1. Staff Survey 2. Survey for Parents of Students with current IEPs

Survey Items

Survey items were drawn from the research and practice literature and clustered to acquire data from each stakeholder group. To the extent possible, staff and parents were asked parallel questions to gauge how perceptions about the same topic differed.

The survey incorporated five-point rating scales, yes/no questions and included open-ended text areas. For reporting purposes, the five-point rating scale was consolidated into three categories: agree (which includes strongly agree and agree); disagree (which includes strongly “disagree” and “disagree”); and don’t know or not applicable (where this option was provided to respondents).

Survey Process

SPS worked collaboratively with the PCG team to facilitate a survey process that would result in the highest possible rate of return. All surveys were opt-in.

In order to encourage participation, all potential participants were informed of the purpose of the survey and provided with instructions for accessing the survey online. Below is a summary, by stakeholder group, of the initial invitation method, reminders issued, response rates and languages offered for each survey.

Initial Invitation Method

Reminder(s) Response Rate

Parents of Students with IEPs

(PK- Grade 12+)

SPS emailed invitation to 703 parents

Two e-mail reminders from SPS

E-mail reminder from SSEPAC to its listserv

A total of 138 parents who received an invitation to complete the IEP Parent survey, completed it online, representing a response rate of 20%.

School-Based Staff

(See below)

SPS e-mailed invitation to all school- based staff

Two e-mail reminders from SPS

A total of 205 SPS staff members, out of the 756 who received the survey, completed it online, representing a response rate of 27%.



A wide variety of staff were invited to participate in the survey. The following positions were included together to simplify the data reporting:

x Administrator x Special Education Teacher x General Education Teacher x Student Support Services (Social Worker, Psychologist, Nurse, Counselor) x Instructional Assistant x Related Service Provider (OT, PT, Speech, etc.) x Other school-based staff

Survey Analysis

Selected survey responses appear within the main body of the report to support discussion of select topics. PCG triangulated data from all data sources to develop the final conclusions and recommendations.

Research and Practice Literature PCG reviewed recent special education research to highlight best practices on several topics, including:

x Organizational and financial structures, such as interdepartmental coordination procedures and staffing structures, that support effectiveness in large special education programs and school-based budgeting;

x Special education referral and eligibility practices that support districts in identifying students in a timely manner through an appropriate assessment process;

x Instructional practices, including district policies and results, and the use of technology to facilitate maximum access to the general education curriculum; and

x Appropriate progress monitoring to allow districts to identify successes and adjust swiftly when students are not progressing.

PCG also drew upon our own knowledge of other districts’ policies and procedures when making recommendations for best practice.

PCG Foundational Approach PCG’s approach to its work with state, county, and district organizations is as a thought partner. That is, we act as an outside agent, with an objective perspective, who works alongside educational entities to identify challenges and provide recommendations for improvement. We follow a mixed methods Collaborative Program Evaluation model that is systematic, based upon both qualitative and quantitative research methods, and produces credible and valid data that proactively informs program implementation, determines gaps, and offers recommendations for the continued improvement of the program.1 We value the importance of developing trust, open communication, and fostering collaboration between the review team and program staff.

Our philosophy for improving student outcomes in schools and districts is driven by the U.S. Department of Education’s Results Driven Accountability (RDA) framework and rooted in key tenets of the Schoolwide Integrated Framework Transformation (SWIFT) model.

1 Donis-Keller, C., Meltzer, J., and Chmielewski, E. (2013). The Power of Collaborative Program Evaluation, A PCG Education White Paper. Available from http://www.publicconsultinggroup.com/media/1272/pcg_collaborative_evaluation.pdf



Results Driven Accountability

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) recognized that the educational outcomes of children and youth with disabilities have not improved as much as expected even with intensive federal regulatory oversight and funding provided to address closing achievement gaps. The Department subsequently announced movement toward prioritizing improvement of outcomes for students with disabilities, from a one-size-fits-all, compliance-focused approach to general supervision to a more balanced system that looks at results and outcomes.2 This approach is consistent with the IDEA, which requires the primary focus of monitoring to be on improving educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities and ensuring that states meet IDEA program requirements. RDA fulfills these requirements by bringing into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities while balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA.3 When providing guidance to school districts, PCG offers recommendations that strike this balance as well.

Schoolwide Integrated Framework Transformation (SWIFT) Model

Based on research related to the improvement of achievement and social/emotional outcomes for students with disabilities, the SWIFT model has received recognition by and support from OSEP.4 SWIFT refocuses existing traditional educational approaches to general and special education and expands inclusiveness for students covered by Title I, those from low-income backgrounds, and English Learners (ELs).

According to researchers and practitioners at the University of Kansas, and as validated by members of the PCG review team’s experience working with districts nationally, there are six critical issues facing public schools, especially chronically low-performing schools, which have suppressed academic and social/emotional outcomes for students and must be addressed to reverse this trend: 1) fragmented support “silos” and lack of family partnership with schools; 2) achievement gaps between subgroups of students based on social, language and/or disability characteristics; 3) lack of student engagement and behavior that impedes learning; 4) lack of implementation of both systems level and student-level evidence-based interventions with fidelity; 5) lack of knowledge sharing and resource availability; and 6) lack of sustainability and replication of successful schoolwide models of inclusive education.5

SWIFT’s five core domains for school and district improvement are backed by research and growing evidence that addressing the above six issues is critical for improving outcomes for SWDs. The domains include a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), which provides interventions and support for students at varied levels of intensity and focuses on the importance of good first teaching, and a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) curriculum and instruction. It aims to build school capacity to provide academic and behavioral support to improve outcomes for all students through equity-based inclusion. The domains, in detail, are:

x Administrative Leadership. A deeply engaged administrative leadership that is committed to transformative inclusive education.

x Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). Use of a MTSS where all academic and behavioral instruction is delivered through a schoolwide data-driven system utilizing universal design at all grade levels.

x Integrated Educational Framework. A strong and positive school culture creates an atmosphere in which everyone feels like they belong. To the extent possible, all students

2 April 5, 2012, RDA Summary, U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rda-summary.doc 3 Id. 4 The SWIFT Center’s work was supported by a $24.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs to support SWIFT implementation in states and school districts across the country and remains one of the leading frameworks for school improvement. See for more information see the SWIFT website at http://www.swiftschools.org 5 Swift Schools. http://www.swiftschools.org/sites/default/files/SWIFT%20FIT%20Technical%20Adequacy%20Report.pdf



participate in the general education curriculum instruction and activities of their grade level peers. Schools embrace ways to redefine roles of paraprofessionals and teaching assistants to support all students.

x Family/Community Partnerships. Family and community partnerships are formed, and families are actively engaged in both the organizational makeup of the school as well as their child's education.

x Inclusive Policy Structure & Practice. District-level support and integrated policy structure are fully aligned and remove barriers and misconceptions surrounding implementation.

In addition, PCG emphasizes the need for intentional support that takes into consideration students’ linguistic and cultural diversity. Districtwide and schoolwide practices based on these components provide a practitioner-focused, research-based, and federally recognized approach to improving academic/social emotional outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities and other students who have not achieved at or above expected levels of proficiency.

Members of the PCG Team PCG’s team members include:

x Anna d’Entremont, Project Director

x Dr. Jennifer Meller, Subject Matter Expert. Former Director in Specialized Services for the School District of Philadelphia

x Matthew Scott, Data Analyst

x Sydney Menzin, Project Support



II. Foreword PCG’s assessment of SPS’s support for students with disabilities focused on policies, procedures, and practices concerning: the use of Student Support Teams (SSTs), special education services provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and supplementary aids and services provided under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504). These three areas are described below to facilitate understanding of the information provided in this report. A graphic representation showing how these areas intersect is provided at the end of this section.

Terminology There are several terms used throughout this report that require definition and clarification within the SPS context.

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

The provision of instruction/interventions and support to students within a framework of Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) improves educational outcomes for all students, including those with Section 504 Plans and IEP, and these and others who are English Learners (EL) and/or gifted/talented.6

Gender Data

Current data collection at the SPS and at the federal level is binary, with comparative data available for male and female only. As such, these categories are used throughout this report.

Parents

In the context of this report, a parent is defined as a natural or adoptive parents of a child, a guardian, a parent acting in the place of a parent (such as a grandparent or stepparent with whom the child lives, or a person who is legally responsible for the child’s welfare) or a surrogate parent. The term “parent” is inclusive of families as well.

Section 504

Throughout the report, Section 504 is frequently referred to as “504,” inclusive of all processes covered by this regulation. The “504 Plan” is a plan developed to ensure that a child who has a disability identified under the law and is attending an elementary or secondary educational institution receives accommodations that will ensure their academic success and access to the learning environment.7

Special Education

Special education refers to the provision of services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the receipt of special education/related services through an IEP.8 The National Center on Disability and Journalism notes that the term “special education” is still widely used when referring to public school programs, though some organizations have started to use “exceptional student services” or “specialized instruction.” SPS uses the term “special education.”

6 See the Council of the Great City School’s document, Common Core State Standards and Diverse Students: Using Multi-Tiered Systems of Support that outlines the key components of an integrated, multi-tiered system of instruction, interventions, and academic and behavioral supports needed by school districts in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The document is applicable also to school districts in states that have not adopted these standards. 7https://www.washington.edu/doit/what-difference-between-iep-and-504-plan 8 https://ncdj.org/style-guide/#S



Acronyms

An index of acronyms used throughout this report is provided below.

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AT Assistive Technology

DD Developmental Delay

ED Emotional Disability

EI Early Intervention

EL English Learner

ELA English Language Arts

ESSA Every Student Succeeds Act

ETL Evaluation Team Lead

IA Instructional Assistant

ID Intellectual Disability

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LEA Local Education Agency

LRE Least Restrictive Environment

MTSS Multi-Tiered System of Supports

OHI Other Health Impairment

PBIS Positive Behavior Intervention Support

PCG Public Consulting Group, Inc.

Section 504 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

SEL Social-Emotional Learning

SIS Student Information System

SLD Specific Learning Disability

SOPM Standard Operating Procedures Manual

SPP State Performance Plan

SPS Sharon Public Schools

SWD Students with Disabilities

UDL Universal Design for Learning



Explanation of MTSS, IDEA, and Section 504

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) In this report, PCG reinforces and further defines the concept of MTSS for the district. MTSS has emerged in literature and practice to describe a comprehensive framework that integrates assessment and intervention in a schoolwide, multi-tiered prevention system to maximize student achievement and reduce behavior problems.9 The framework is based on a presumption that no matter how effectively high-quality curriculum aligned to state standards is developed, supported and implemented, some students will need additional support and interventions to be successful.10

The foundation of MTSS is a high-quality general education core curriculum that provides all students with an opportunity to increase learning. Through a universal design for learning, barriers are removed or reduced for diverse learners, including English learners (ELs) and/or students with disabilities. Students at risk for learning difficulties are provided with a series of increasingly intensive, individualized and research-based interventions, and data are collected to assess progress over time. For ELs and standard-English learners alike, MTSS incorporates teaching that is culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate, explicit, and rigorous.

When implemented according to established standards, MTSS provides an earlier and more appropriate identification of students who are not on track academically and/or socially, allowing for the application of differentiated instruction and intervention as soon as a need is identified. For example, almost half of U.S. students who receive special education have a learning disability related to reading.11 Under an MTSS framework, students do not have to exhibit significant academic failure or behavioral difficulties before they receive focused support; as a result, significantly greater percentages of students are likely to meet expected grade level standards. Moreover, the framework leads to greater student engagement and decreased discipline referrals, as well as fewer students requiring special education services. These outcomes help to reduce the disproportionate special education representation of students from various racial/ethnic groups and of students with developing levels of English proficiency. Moreover, special education resources can be deployed in a more concentrated fashion to those students who require more intensive support than those provided through general education.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) IDEA, which is supplemented by Massachusetts provisions, establishes standards for the provision of a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities who require special education and related services to benefit from an education. These standards establish parameters for: the identification and evaluation of students suspected of having one or more of 14 specified disabilities, and the provision of special education/related services in the least restrictive environment (LRE) that are based on an Individualized Education Program (IEP).12 A complex system of procedural safeguards governs this process.

9 The term MTSS is included in the reauthorized federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Every Student Succeeds Act). Also, the terms Response to Intervention (RtI) and Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) are frequently used across the country to refer to the process for providing interventions and support for academic (RtI) and positive behavior (PBIS). 10 Information in this section was adapted from the Council of the Great City Schools publication, Common Core State Standards and Diverse Urban Students: Using Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/77--Achievement%20Task%20Force--RTI%20White%20Paper-Final.pdf 11 Statement by Dr. Reid Lyon before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Education Reform (2002) at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475868.pdf 12 Specific learning disability, speech/language impairment, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, autism, other health impairment (including attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)], hearing impairment (including deafness), visual impairment (including blindness), orthopedic impairment, traumatic brain injury, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities.



Based on an established set of indicators, each state monitors school districts in specific areas through a State Performance Plan (SPP), such as: the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) achievement, graduation and dropout rates; disproportionate representation by race/ethnicity; placement rates in general education and more restrictive settings; disciplinary out-of-school suspensions/expulsions, etc. Several indicators are also monitored by race/ethnicity student subgroups.

Inclusive Education One of the overriding principles of IDEA is the education of students receiving special education services in the least restrictive environment (LRE), which is based on a presumption of education in the general education setting. However, if the IEP team determines that the nature or severity of a student’s disability is such that his/her education in the general education setting with the use of supplementary aids/services cannot be achieved satisfactorily, the team may plan for the student to receive special education/related services in a separate class. In such cases, the removal from a general education class is proportionate to need, ranging from a class portion to full-time placement.

Although the LRE requirement has received much attention since IDEA’s 1975 enactment, the provision’s relationship to academic achievement was recently reinforced by the federal Office the Special Education Programs’ (OSEP) emphasis on improving educational and functional outcomes for students with disabilities. Over time, research has highlighted instructional practices that enable more students who receive special education services to be educated successfully within the general education setting for most of the school day, i.e., at least 80% of the time.

Generally, instruction provided in effective inclusive settings enables all students, including those with disabilities, to learn more and have improved outcomes. These settings include characteristics such as: flexible groupings, differentiated instruction, sufficient support, thoughtful and proactive scheduling, appropriate and adaptive materials, and well-trained special and general educators who collaborate and co-plan. Research has consistently reported a positive relationship between inclusive and effective instruction and better outcomes for students with disabilities, including higher academic performance, higher likelihood of employment, higher participation rates in postsecondary education, and greater integration within communities. There is also research showing that the inclusion of students with a range of disabilities in general education classes does not impact the achievement of their nondisabled peers.13 When special educators teach students from as many as four grades in one class, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to focus on each grade’s standards with any depth or effectiveness.

When schools are organized in an inclusive manner, they are better able to support students with more significant disabilities and enable more to attend the school they would otherwise attend if not disabled. This model enables more of these students to attend school within their community, supports a more natural proportion of students with an IEP in each school, and reduces transportation time and costs.

Section 504 Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, such as funding from the U.S. Department of Education. Section 504’s eligibility standards are significantly broader than IDEA’s in several important ways; and the 2007 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) amendment expanded the standards further.14

As previously discussed, IDEA eligibility requires a student to have at least one of 14 specific disabilities and need special education services to benefit from an education. Section 504, which is less well defined, 13 See Kalambouka A., Farrell P., Dyson A., & Kaplan, I. (2007, December). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365–382. 14 For local education agencies, Section 504 and the ADA have concurrent standards for students.



applies to students with: 1) a physical or mental impairment; 2) that substantially limits; 3) a major life activity.15 These terms are not limited to lists of specific impairments and major life activities, and eligibility is to be broadly construed:

There is not an exhaustive list provided for physical or mental impairments “because of the difficulty of ensuring the comprehensiveness of such a list.”16 The non-exhaustive list of major life activities includes items such as: caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, working, etc. The term “substantially limits” is not defined and is expected to be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the law.17

When determining a student’s eligibility under Section 504, the process must exclude consideration of the ameliorating effects of any mitigating measures that the student is using to accommodate his/her physical impairment, e.g., medication, academic or behavior support, etc.

Section 504 is broader than IDEA in another important aspect. IDEA is limited to students who need special education to benefit from an education. If a student needs related services only, the student is not covered under IDEA. Section 504 does not have this limitation and it includes students who do not need special education. The following graphic illustrates how Section 504 and IDEA intersect.

Intersection between Section 504 and IDEA Students receiving services under Section 504 have a plan that documents their needs, e.g., (non) academic, social, health, etc., and the supplementary aids/services (including transportation) deemed necessary for school and extracurricular activities. These services may include but not be limited to: health related services, extended time for taking tests, positive behavior support, support from a sign language interpreter, etc. Students who meet Section 504 criteria also have procedural safeguards that are similar to, but are not as detailed as, IDEA safeguards.

For example, a student may have a health condition that substantially limits a major life activity and not require any special education services. Such a student is not eligible under IDEA but is 504 eligible. The graphic below shows the intersection between students eligible under 504 and IDEA.

15 Section 504 has two additional routes for coverage: 1) an individual has a record of having an impairment; or 2) an individual is regarded as having such an impairment. 16 Protecting Students With Disabilities, Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities, Office for Civil Rights, U January 19, 2012 at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html. 17 Office for Civil Rights, Questions and Answers on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 for Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-504faq-201109.html.

504 Only NO Special Education

IDEA Special

Education



Relationship between MTSS Framework, Section 504 Services & IDEA Special Education The following information explains the relationship between the MTSS framework, Section 504 services and IDEA’s special education services.

MTSS Framework

MTSS provides an overall framework for structuring and coordinating the provision of core instruction based on state standards along with the additional support some students require so that all are successful. The holistic nature of the MTSS framework requires the consideration of all students, including those with Section 504 and IEP plans, and these and others who are EL and/or gifted/talented.

Under the MTSS framework, core instruction is evidence-based, rigorous and of high quality. By utilizing a universal design for learning, learning differences are considered proactively rather than reactively. The instruction is culturally relevant and linguistically appropriate and is implemented with integrity for all students. The framework is based on a presumption that some students require additional instruction in order to achieve grade level standards. Increasingly intensive tiers of academic and social/emotional support are targeted to meet student needs based on data-based problem-solving and decision-making; instruction is adjusted to continually improve both student performance and the rate at which it progresses. Furthermore, the process is used to assess (using student responses to the instruction) the effectiveness of the tiered instruction/interventions being implemented.

Section 504 Services

Students with Section 504 plans may require instruction/intervention that is provided through one or more of MTSS’s increasingly intensive tiers. At any point during the MTSS process a student may be referred to determine whether he/she has a disability that meets Section 504 criteria. As discussed above, the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, e.g., academic and social/emotional support, cannot be taken into consideration when determining a student’s Section 504 eligibility. MTSS interventions are an example of such mitigating measures; however, the interventions may themselves be supplementary services appropriately included in a Section 504 plan.

Special Education Services

With effective implementation of the MTSS framework, including the early identification of students when they are first having academic and/or social/emotional difficulties, it is more likely that fewer will present a need for a referral for special education services. In some cases, progress monitoring will provide data to suggest a need for special education.

Under the MTSS framework, special education is not considered to be a separate tier for instruction and intervention. Instead, it is viewed as a service delivery model that is integrated within the tier(s) of instruction/intervention and matched to a student's skill needs.18 In most cases, the student’s IEP incorporates these interventions, and identifies the personnel and educational setting (general education and/or separate) in which they will be provided. In some cases, the student’s need for interventions will not be related to his/her disability and will be provided as determined by the problem-solving team.

18 Tiered Instruction and Intervention in a Response-to-Intervention at Model http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction/tiered-instruction-and-intervention-rti-model.



Relationship between MTSS & Special Education Eligibility

Factors other than a disability may account for students having difficulty in language and literacy (as well as numeracy). Such factors may include the nature of a student’s educational opportunity, as well as teaching practices or assessment tools that, for example, are insensitive to cultural or linguistic differences.19 Other long-documented circumstances might include children with limited oral language and literacy experiences who arrive in the classroom behind in vocabulary development, print awareness abilities, and phonological abilities; or a lack of early child-centered written materials in the house or nutritious food.20 When implemented with fidelity, however, MTSS can help ensure that these factors are not primarily impacting student achievement as staff members consider making a special education referral or determining eligibility for special education services.

Graphic Representation

The graphic below reflects how MTSS, Section 504 services and special education services intersect. The State of Massachusetts has adopted MTSS framework guidance that is included in the next section.

19 Response to Intervention Guiding Principles for Educators from the international Reading Association at http://www.reading.org/Libraries/Resources/RTI_brochure_web.pdf 20 For example, see Hart and Risley’s celebrated research, “Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children,” showing the long-time impact that insufficient oral language, including language giving positive reinforcement, for preschool children has on learning. Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. See also University of Oregon’s Big Ideas in Beginning Reading at http://reading.uoregon.edu/big_ideas/voc/voc_what.php.



III. Multi-tiered System of Supports and Referral Practices Strengths Opportunities for Improvement

x Adoption of a districtwide MTSS framework has been identified as a key district priority.

x District leadership is spearheading this initiative.

x SPS has begun the professional learning process to support implementation.

x Existing practices at the elementary level may ease implementation.

x MTSS awareness is limited at the school level.

x A prioritization on quality core instruction will better support all learners.

x There is the need for a districtwide approach to Social-Emotional learning, including defined Tier 1, 2 and 3 supports

x There are limited Tier 2 and Tier 3 reading and math interventions at all levels.

x There is no districtwide progress monitoring tool. Current progress monitoring appears ad hoc.

x Middle and high school will need support to ensure implementation readiness.

Introduction Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is an intervention and instructional framework that creates the necessary systems to ensure all students have access to a high-quality educational experience. This section reviews SPS’s progress towards implementation of an MTSS framework across district schools. While intervention supports are offered as a core component of the general education curriculum, successful implementation of MTSS will reduce unnecessary referrals to special education.

MTSS Framework The provision of instruction/interventions and support to students within a framework of Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) improves educational outcomes for all students, including those with Section 504 Plans and IEP, and these and others who are EL and/or gifted/talented.21 The framework focuses on prevention and the early identification of students who may benefit from instructional and behavioral interventions, as well as acceleration, that remove barriers to learning.22 When implemented as intended, MTSS leads to increased academic achievement by supporting rigorous core instruction, strategic/targeted interventions, and improved student behavior. Furthermore, the framework has been successfully used to support a reduction in disproportionate special education referrals of students based on race, gender, socioeconomic or English learner subgroups.

Reflecting on the growing recognition of MTSS as a system wide framework for supporting student achievement and positive behavior, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) includes MTSS as a permissible usage of Title I funds. The Act defines MTSS as “a comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students’ needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision-making.”23 MTSS provides an overall framework for structuring and coordinating the provision of core instruction along with the additional behavioral supports, such as

21 See the Council of the Great City School’s document, Common Core State Standards and Diverse Students: Using Multi-Tiered Systems of Support that outlines the key components of an integrated, multi-tiered system of instruction, interventions, and academic and behavioral supports needed by school districts in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The document is applicable also to school districts in states that have not adopted these standards. 22 MTSS reflects the merger of response to instruction/intervention (RTI2), which typically focuses on academic achievement, and a system used to focus on improving positive behavior support. 23 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as reauthorized in 2015.



behavior modifications or mental health supports, some students require so that all are successful. MTSS is centered on a tiered system of support, where every student receives high quality core instruction, known as Tier 1. Some students need supplemental instruction, which is referred to as Tier 2, and a small cohort of students receive the most intensive intervention and supports, known as Tier 3. Movement among these tiers should be fluid. A student with acute needs does not need to progress through the tiers to get individualized support, and a student who needs extra support should not miss general instruction that is provided in Tier 1.

Under the MTSS framework, core instruction is evidence-based, rigorous, and of high quality. By utilizing a universal design for learning system, learning differences are considered proactively rather than reactively. The instruction is culturally relevant, linguistically appropriate, and is implemented with integrity for all students. The framework is based on a presumption that some students require additional instruction in order to achieve grade level standards. Increasingly intensive tiers of academic and social/emotional support are targeted to meet student needs based on data-based problem-solving and decision-making; instruction is adjusted to continually improve both student performance and the rate at which it progresses. Furthermore, the process is used to assess (using student responses to the instruction) the effectiveness of the tiered instruction/interventions being implemented. Many states have established intervention systems that align to the core tenets of the MTSS process and branded them accordingly. In Massachusetts, MTSS has been adopted as the Massachusetts Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS).

Massachusetts Guidance The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has provided guidance to school districts related to MTSS since 2011. This guidance is offered through the Systems for Student Success Office. Massachusetts DESE describes MTSS in the following way:

“MTSS is a framework designed to meet the needs of all students by ensuring that schools optimize data-driven decision making, progress monitoring, and evidence-based supports and strategies with increasing intensity to sustain student growth. MTSS is not just about tiered interventions, but rather how all the systems in a school or district fit together to ensure a high-quality education for all students.”24

DESE updated its guidance through the creation on an MTSS Blueprint document in 2018 based on current research. This new guidance more explicitly focuses on equitable access and universal design for learning (UDL) and fully integrates social emotional and behavioral supports with academic supports. The MTSS Blueprint is organized around three drivers: Leadership, Competency, and

24 Multi-Tiered System of Support: A Blueprint for Massachusetts Educators http://www.doe.mass.edu/sfss/mtss/blueprint.pdf



Implementation. A Self-Assessment Tool enables school districts to gauge where its current strengths and gaps are relative to the MTSS model.

MTSS District Practices

Implementation

SPS is in the planning stage of MTSS implementation. Adoption of a districtwide MTSS framework has been identified as a key district priority. The Assistant Superintendent is leading this initiative.

The District’s current focus has been on building a solid framework for MTSS at the elementary level. The District has dedicated time and resources to support planning this planning. Several key actions over the past year include:

x Two Elementary School Principals, the Assistant Superintendent, and the district Data Specialist all took Harvard’s DataWise course online last year.

x The Assistant Superintendent and Elementary School Coordinators attended the DESE’s MTSS Summer Academy to better understand the implementation needs related to MTSS. Attendees reported the training to be useful.

x District leadership is dedicating time during monthly administration meetings to complete DESE’s MTSS Self-Assessment. The self-assessment tool gauges current strengths and gaps in key areas of MTSS implementation.

x As part of the planning process, SPS is using DESE’s MTSS Blueprint and other tools provided by the state as guiding documents.

x The District is currently looking at teachers’ schedules to allow for team problem solving time.

There is the general belief that there is still a significant amount of work to be done to support districtwide MTSS implementation. While this need was felt at all grades level, expansion to the secondary level was cited as a specific concern. It was noted that a considerable amount of planning still needs to occur to support middle and high school readiness. In part these concerns stem from the belief that there is not yet a shared vision of priorities, best practices, or clear roadmap for MTSS. Some noted concern about the absence of the “right belief system about how to support students” and expressed concern of a “big divide between special and general educators.” PCG’s data collection surfaced areas of concern about general educators’ beliefs related to inclusion and ownership of all student that may impact readiness for MTSS.

Awareness of MTSS

While work has started to occur at the district level, MTSS is not a common term among teachers and other staff. When asked, most focus groups had either never heard the term or used it interchangeably with Response to Intervention (RtI). Those who had knew about it from graduate coursework, time in other districts, or their own personal research. At the elementary school level, both special and general education focus group participants reported that it is not something that has been discussed as part of professional development or other school communications.

Current Approach

SPS currently uses an RtI approach to address the needs of struggling learners. However, most stakeholders indicated that RtI has not been institutionalized in the district and, as such, there is “no true RtI program.” Practices that do exist vary greatly by school. An RtI taskforce was started seven years ago to begin the work, but reportedly the initiative never fully took off.

Focus group participants reported the following concerns: x There is no clear framework. x Staff are doing a lot to help struggling learners, but the overall approach is not thoughtful or clear. x Interventions are not always specific to skills needed.



x There is no consistency among schools. x Teachers do not know where to go or how to provide support. x Special Education is the only “game in town.”

As summarized by one focus group member, “We have no measures, no definition of data collection and progress monitoring, and no consistency.”

Tier 1 Core Instruction and Positive Behavior Supports

Core Curriculum

SPS is an academically high performing district based on state performance metrics. As such, focus group participants reported that historically there has not been the urgency around a deep focus on instructional practices. It has also not been a common practice to dig deeply into subgroup performance at the school level. Senior administrators referenced a current push to begin to change this culture.

The following concerns were raised by focus group participants:

x “We don’t have a strong core instruction; we teach to the middle.” x “We don’t have a shared vision of instructional strategies.” x “Kids are referred (for special education) but aren’t qualifying. We don’t know what to do after

that. In some schools, special education teachers are serving struggling students without IEPs.” x “There is a hesitancy around change, including Tier 1 interventions because Sharon is so high

performing.” x “There is a lack of variety for curriculum resources to support all students. We teach in a college

prep environment.” x “Our Tier 1 is not responsive to our changing student needs. We are quick to put that child with

someone else. We immediately refer to them to special education.” x “Our approach has been to add bodies instead of fix the root cause.”

English Language Arts

The district has recently implemented the Readers’ and Writers’ Workshop model at the elementary level as the core curriculum. Many focus group members described this approach as an intervention. It is being used across all elementary schools. The Workshop model was observed in all elementary schools during student shadowing with varying degrees of implementation.

Math

It was reported that some elementary schools have begun to also implement the Workshop model for Math. Use of this model was not observed during student shadowing. Math Expressions is the adopted Core Curriculum at the elementary level. This appeared to be the math core curriculum observed during the student observations.

Positive Behavior Supports

Support for positive behavior cited in literature refers to a comprehensive, systemic, three-tiered approach to establishing the social, cultural, and behavioral supports needed by all students to achieve both social and academic success. 25 The most effective implementation integrates supports for positive behavior with supports for academic success.

25 See, for example, the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support; and Florida’s Positive Behavior Support site http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/.



There is currently no district-wide tiered approach or written guidance to behavior management. Instead, the adoption of a school-wide behavior framework is at the discretion of each building principal. Schools and classrooms make their own Social Emotional (SEL) curricular decisions. Most elementary schools use a mix of components from Second Step, Responsive Classroom, and other programs. Secondary schools were reported to have no explicit SEL instruction. The district contracts with an SEL coach for grades Pre-K through 5. The SEL coach functions as a specialist for the district. The original grant that paid for this role in 2016 was written by the Student Services department. The SEL coach role is still managed by Student Services although the work is considered part of the core curriculum.

Tier 2 and 3 Interventions One of the core elements of MTSS is the provision of research-based, increasingly intensive interventions that are targeted to student needs:

An intervention is a specific skill-building strategy implemented and monitored to improve a targeted skill (i.e., what is actually known) and achieve adequate progress in a specific area (academic or behavioral). A scientifically based intervention refers to specific curriculum and educational interventions that have been proven to be effective for most students and the research has been reported in scientific, peer-reviewed journals. A modification, on the other hand, is a change that actually lowers the standards of what is expected to be known.26

Each elementary building has the equivalent of one full-time literacy specialist and one math specialist. Their role has been primarily to provide intervention support to struggling students. There is no explicit reading support or RtI at the high school. There are some informal practices that exist. For example, special education teacher works with some student on executive functioning skills before and after school. Most of the students who participate are in general education. There is a daily peer tutor program from National Honor Society students during Eagle block. Middle school students may receive structured supports during the advisory block as an intervention.

Data Use and Progress Monitoring According to the National Center for RtI27:

Progress monitoring needs to pay attention to the fidelity of implementation and selection of evidence-based tools, with consideration for cultural and linguistic responsiveness and recognition of student strengths. Data obtained from progress monitoring help staff assess whether students are making an adequate rate of progress and it provides information for problem solving around what may not be working for individual students or groups of students. In some instances, the problem may be the integrity or fidelity with which the instruction or the intervention is delivered. District protocols can provide guidance for defining progress-monitoring requirements for instruction and interventions.

Data practices related to progress monitoring and reporting vary across the district. There is currently no intervention or progress monitoring data at the district level. At the elementary level, each school reported different practices related to progress monitoring and student level data collection. The high school has

26 Alliance for School-based Problem-solving & Intervention Resources in Education (ASPIRE) at www.illinoisaspire.org/central/download.php?dID=51. 27 National Center for RtI website: https://rti4success.org/essential-components-rti/progress-monitoring



some common assessments they have developed and used. District administrators noted the need a for tool to track data about interventions and progress once MTSS is fully up and running. As a whole SPS does not appear to have a data driven culture but, as one focus group participant expressed, one based on “gut-driven” decisions. The teacher evaluation system, Baseline Edge, is currently being used as an ad hoc data warehouse. The data, however, are not consistent nor are there well-understood districtwide expectations about data collection and analysis. As one focus group participant shared, “school leaders are not holding teachers accountable. Nothing happens with the data, there are no data meetings or times to review data together. Teachers have no motivation to enter data. There is no expectation that teachers use data to reflect on their practice.” There were also reported union grievances about teachers collecting and inputting data into this system.

Staff Survey Responses

Exhibit 1. Before a student is referred for special education, every attempt is made to meet the student's needs through general education interventions.

Exhibit 2. My school(s) uses the MTSS framework with fidelity.

78%70%

52%83%

65%60%

71%

10%13%

17%17%

32%27%

17%

12%17%

30%

3%13%12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

General Education Teacher (n=119)Instructional Assistant (n=30)

Other School-based staff (n=23)Related Service Provider (n=12)

Special Education Teacher (n=37)Student Support Services (n=30)

All Roles (n=251)

Agree Disagree Don't Know

23%12%9%

25%42%

17%22%

12%12%

57%33%

33%53%

24%

65%76%

35%42%

25%30%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=251)




IV. Special Education Referral, Eligibility and Incidence Rates

Strengths Opportunities for Improvement

x Incidence rates are below state and national averages, and most peer districts.

x Every school has a functioning IST team. x Most parents believed the school

explained their child’s eligibility in a way they could understand.

x Only 20% of students who were referred to special education were found eligible.

x An overwhelming percentage of HS students who are referred are found ineligible.

x White students have a higher referral rate than other students.

x Staff report a lack of clarity between differentiating between language and learning needs for English Learners. English Learners are overrepresented in special education.

x There is no district-wide policy for collecting referral data.

x There is no written guidance on eligibility for 504 or Health Plans.

x 82% of students with 504 plans are white. 63% of students with 504 plans are in HS.

x Asian students are underrepresented in special education. Black and Hispanic students are overrepresented in special education.

Referral and Eligibility Practices The charts in the section analyze data related to student referral and eligibility. The section first analyzes overall student referral rates for special education, and then analyzes the same data aggregated by different populations of students. Where relevant, it compares referral rates to eligibility rates for different student populations.

Special Education Referral During the 2018-19 school year, 180 students ages 6-21 were referred for special education. Of those referred, 39 (21.7%) were found eligible. Referral rates were highest for students in grades 3 and 5. Referrals for students in grades 9 and 11 accounted for 20.5% of all referrals.



Exhibit 3. Number of SPS Students (age 6-21) Referred for Special Education, Evaluated, and Found Eligible, 2018-19

Exhibit 4. Number of Students Referred for Special Education by Grade, 2018-19

x Of 9th and 11th graders who were referred for special education, only one 9th grader and one 11th grader were found eligible.

x Of all students referred but not found eligible, 26 were reported as having a 504 Plan the following year. Seven of these students were referred in 9th grade and seven were referred in 11th grade.

Special Education Eligibility Overall, 21.7% of students in grades K to 12, who were referred for special education and evaluated, were found eligible. Of the students found eligible, 31.6% had a specific learning disability, 23.7% had a developmental delay, and 21.1% had other health impairment.

180 174

39

0

50

100

150

200

250

Referred Evaluated Found Eligible

<10

11

18

21

17

20

14

1110

18

<10

19

<10

0

5

10

15

20

25

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



Exhibit 5. Percentage of SPS Students (ages 6-21) Found Eligible for Special Education by Disability, 2018-1928

Gender

Female students accounted for 46.4% of those referred for special education, compared to 53.0% for male students. Of the 39 students found eligible for special education, 56.4% were male, compared to 43.6% female. While these figures do not mirror the overall district population, they are aligned to national trends.

Race and Ethnicity

White students accounted for 73.5% of all referrals, compared to 8.8% of Asian students, and 7.2% of Black or African American students. At 76.9%, White students comprised the largest group of students found eligible for special education, compared to 5.1% of Asian and Black or African American students. Asian students make up a larger overall population (28.9%) in the district than those referred (8.8%). White students make up 55.8% of the overall Sharon student population.

28 No student was found eligible in the following categories: Multiple Disabilities and Intellectual Disability

Autism5.3%

Developmental Delay23.7%

Emotional Disturbance

10.5%

Other Health Impairment

21.1%

Specific Learning Disability

31.6%

Speech/ Language Impairment7.9%

43.6%

56.4%

Female

Male



Exhibit 6. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) Found Eligible for Special Education by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-1929

English Learner Status

Sharon has a growing population of English Learners (EL). One quarter (25%) of Sharon’s students have a home language that is not English, and 4.5% are identified as ELs. Sharon has more students with a home language that is not English than the state overall (21.9%) but fewer students who are classified as ELs (10.5%).

Focus group participants reported lack of clear guidance about understanding when the learning need is language-based versus special education. There is a reported need to establish criteria for EL decisions. Currently SPS uses ACCESS scores to understand a student’s language proficiency. Focus group participants noted limitations to using these scores for making special education referral decisions as these scores are only reported annually.

29 No student identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native was referred for special education

Asian5.1%

Black or African American

5.1%

Hispanic7.7%

Two or more races5.1%

White76.9%



Exhibit 7. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) Found Eligible for Special Education by English Learner Status, 2018-1930

x Students identified as EL at SPS accounted for 9.5% of students referred for special education evaluation.

x Of all students found eligible for special education, 18.3% were English Learners. x This number is higher than the district average, where 4.5% of the overall student population is

identified as EL.

District Practices for Referral All schools either have a Student Study Team (SST) or an Instructional Student Team (IST) who review student data and determine an intervention plan for struggling students. Referrals come from either the classroom teacher or a student’s parent. The SST/IST will either recommend an RtI plan or a referral to testing for special education. Though schools have tried to establish consistent teams and meeting times, it was reported that scheduling is a challenge. Middle school SST meetings, for example, are afterschool and voluntary.

Schools keep their own data on referrals for testing. There is no consistent practice in how to keep this data. It was the common perception among focus group participants that most referrals come from parental requests for testing. This perception was consistent across all grade levels.

School psychologists referenced the need for greater clarity around assessment protocols. This includes which tests and the mode (online versus paper). School psychologists noted they use what they have in the buildings, even if the test if outdated. There is no consistency across the three elementary schools. The middle and high schools also use different assessments, making alignment of scoring challenging.

30 No student identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native was referred for special education

81.7%

18.3%

EL Non EL Students



Exhibit 8. Insufficient general education reading intervention support is a major reason for special education referrals in this school/district.

Exhibit 9. Insufficient general education math intervention support is a major reason for special education referrals in this school/district.

Exhibit 10. Insufficient general education positive behavior support is a major reason for special education referrals in this school/district.

12%37%

30%33%

46%33%

25%

50%40%

35%42%

32%30%

42%

38%23%

35%25%22%

37%33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

General Education Teaher (n=116)Instructional Assistant (n=30)



All Roles (n=248)


14%30%

22%17%

30%33%

21%

49%43%

39%42%

46%30%

44%

37%27%

39%42%

24%37%34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=250)


24%47%

26%25%

44%50%

33%

49%33%

30%42%

47%33%

43%

27%20%

43%33%

8%17%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=248)




Exhibit 11. Once eligible for special education, the behavioral supports necessary to meet individual student needs are available at my school(s).

Parent Survey Responses

Exhibit 12. Did SPS staff explain to you why your child needed special education services in a way that you were able to understand?

Section 504 Eligibility

Focus groups participants noted there was no process for what would constitute a 504 referral, aside from when it starts as a Health Plan. The district does not have written guidance on 504 eligibility procedures or a Section 504 Manual.

English Learners Evaluations are generally conducted English. Current staff reportedly do not have the training or ability to assess in any of the 19 languages spoken in the district. The district will contract out when assessment in the student’s native language is deemed appropriate.

44%69%

44%18%

49%45%47%

40%23%

25%73%

51%48%

41%

16%8%

31%9%

7%12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=225)


100%85%

83%91%

79%85%

12%13%

9%10%

11%

4%4%

10%5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pre-Kindergarten (n=11)Grades K-2 (n=26)Grades 3-6 (n=52)Grades 7-8 (n=23)

Grades 9-12+ (n=39)All Grades (n=151)

Yes No Don't Know



Staff Survey Response

Exhibit 13. Prior to a referral for special education, the impact of a child’s native language on academic performance or behavior is considered.

Incidence Rates

Overall Incidence Rates

As reflected in the figure below, the percentage of SPS students with IEPs ages 6-21 has trended around 4 percentage points below the state average between 2015-16 to 2017-18 and was lower than the national average in 2015-16 and 2016-17.

Exhibit 14. Percentage of SPS Students with IEPs Compared to State and National Incidence Rates (Ages 6-21), 2016-17 to 2017-1831

31 Nation data retrieved from Grads360 SPP-APR Reports: https://osep.grads360.org/#program/spp-apr-resources: SPS and State Data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=02660000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavId=305&&fycode=2016

73%63%

61%75%

81%67%

71%

4%20%

13%25%14%

3%9%

23%17%

26%

5%30%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=250)


13.2% 12.1%13.5%

17.2% 17.4% 17.7%

13.1% 13.3% 13.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

2016 2017 2018

SPS State Nation



SPS and Comparable District Incidence Rates

PCG compared SPS’s incidence rate to seven other comparable districts, along with the state. During 2018-19, the overall state incidence rate was 18.4%. SPS, along with the comparable school districts, had incidence rates lower than the state average. The average between comparable districts ranged between 10.5% to 18.2%. SPS’s average of 14.6% was the second lowest of all comparable districts.

Exhibit 15. SPS IEP Rates Compared to Other Massachusetts School Districts and State (ages 6-21), 2018-19

Incidence Rates by Primary Disability Area

As is reflected in the figure below, SPS had a higher rate of students with autism (15.4%) compared to the state (11.7%) and nation (9.8%). SPS had a slightly higher rate of students with other health impairment (16.9%) compared to the state (15.4%) and nation (15.8%). The District’s rate of emotional disability (12.8%) was higher than the state (11.0%) and nation (5.7%). SPS had a lower incidence rate when compared to the state and nation for the following disability categories: intellectual disability (4.4%), specific learning disability (24.3%), and speech or language impairments (13.9%).

14.6%16.3%

10.5%

18.2%17.0% 16.6%

17.6% 18.2%

18.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

District Incidence Rate State Incidence Rate



Exhibit 16. Percentage of SPS SwD by Disability Area Compared to State and Nation (ages 6-21), 2018-1932

Overall Incidence Rates by Gender

Overall, 65.0% of all SPS students with IEPs were male, and 35.0% were female. These percentages are aligned with the national data, wherein roughly two-thirds of students receiving special education services were male (67%) and one third (33%) were female.33

Exhibit 17. Percent of SPS Male vs. Female Students with IEPs (Age 6-21), 2018-19

Male students comprised the majority of students identified in all disability categories. The following disability categories had higher percentages of males than the overall IEP average (65.0%): autism

32 SPS incidence data obtained from SPS October, 2019, End of SY 2018-19: Nation data retrieved from: Grads360 SPP-APR Reports: https://osep.grads360.org/#program/spp-apr-resources 33 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 25th Annual (2003) Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, vol. 1, Washington, D.C., 2005.

Alldisabilities Autism Emotional

DisabilityIntellectualDisabilitiy

OtherHealth

Impairment

SpecificLearningDisability

Speech orLanguageImpairment

Other

SPS 14.4% 15.4% 12.8% 4.4% 16.9% 24.3% 13.9% 12.3%State 17.6% 11.7% 11.0% 5.9% 15.4% 29.5% 15.6% 10.9%Nation 13.2% 9.8% 5.7% 7.1% 15.8% 39.6% 17.2% 4.8%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Inci

denc

e R

ate

Female35.0%

Male65.0%



(85.5%), developmental delay (74.3%), intellectual disability (66.7%), and other health impairment (70.3%).

Exhibit 18. Percent of SPS Male vs. Female Students with IEPs (Age 6-21) by Disability, 2018-1934

Incidence Rates by Race/Ethnicity

The information below reflects data for SPS students who received special education services, by race/ethnicity, to consider the extent to which there is disproportionality.

Exhibit 19. Percent of SPS Students with IEPs (Age 6-21) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-193536

34 Other Includes: Hearing Impairment, Multiple Disabilities, Orthopedic Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Visual Impairment 35 Data for Race/Ethnicity charts is from SPS, provided to PCG in October 2019 based on End of SY 2018-19. 36 SPS did not have any students with IEPs identified as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

85.5%74.3% 63.8% 66.7% 70.3%

50.0% 51.9% 61.3% 65.0%

14.5%25.7% 36.2% 33.3% 29.7%

50.0% 48.1% 38.7% 35.0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Male Female

Black or African American

8.3%

Asian11.3%

White67.0%

American Indian or

Alaskan Native0.4%

Hispanic7.8%

Two or More Races5.2%



Of the total number of students ages 6-21 with an IEP:

x 67.0% were White x 11.3% were Asian x 8.3% were Black or African American x 7.8% were Hispanic x 5.2% were Two or More Races x 0.4% were American Indian or Alaskan Native

As points of comparison: White students accounted for 55.6% of the total student population; Asian students accounted for 28.9% of the total student population, Black or African American students accounted for 4.9% of the total student population, Hispanic students accounted for 5.3% of the total student population; and students identified with Two or More Races accounted for 5.2% of the total student population.

Exhibit 20. Percent of SPS Students with and without IEPs (age 6-21) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-1937

Of all:

x Students who are Asian, 5.6% had IEPs. x Students who are Black or African American students, 24.5% had IEPs. x Students who are Hispanic, 21.1% had IEPs. x Students who are Two or More Races, 14.4% had IEPs. x Students who are White, 17.4% had IEPs.

37 Excluding the following race/ethnicity groups due to n<10; American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

5.6%24.5% 21.1% 14.4% 17.4%

94.4%75.5% 78.9% 85.6% 82.6%

Asian Black or AfricanAmerican

Hispanic Two or More Races White

With IEP Without IEP



Exhibit 21. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) by Disability Area and Race/Ethnicity, 2018-1938

Data indicated the prevalence of disability types varied by race. Key differences, displayed in the graph above, include:

x While Hispanic students accounted for 7.8% of students with disabilities, they accounted for 16.7% of students with an intellectual disability and 12.2% of students with a specific learning disability.

x While Black or African American students accounted for 8.3% of students with disabilities, they accounted for 20.8% of students with an intellectual disability, 12.1% of students of students with other health impairment, and 12.2% of students with a specific learning disability.

x While Asian students accounted for 11.3% of students with disabilities, they accounted for 16% of students with autism and 32.0% of students with a speech or language impairment.

Disproportionate Representation in Special Education by Race/Ethnicity Racial/ethnic disproportionality in special education has been an important topic of concern for many years. According to a review in Exceptional Children: “the disproportionate representation of minority children is among the most critical and enduring problems in the field of special education”.39 Disproportionality refers to a group’s representation in a particular category that exceeds expectations for that group, or differs substantially from the representation of others in that category. Students from certain racial/ethnic groups, particularly Black or African American students, have historically been disproportionately identified as in need of special education, placed in more restrictive settings, and subjected to higher rates of exclusionary disciplinary practices, such as suspension and expulsion.40

Disproportionality can exist in various forms:

x National, state, and district level over-identification of students as disabled, or under-identification as gifted/talented.

x Over-representation in classification, placement, and suspension.

38 Other Includes: Hearing Impairment, Multiple Disabilities, Orthopedic Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Visual Impairment 39 Skiba et al., 2008, p. 264 40 NASP Position Statement: Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality in Education, 2013.

All Students Autism EmotionalDisability

IntellectualDisability

Other HeathImpairment


Speech/Language

ImpairmentDev. Delay Other

White 362 62.7% 79.7% 54.2% 72.5% 65.6% 54.7% 74.3% 71.9%Two or more races 28 7.2% 4.3% 4.2% 5.5% 4.6% 5.3% 8.6% 0.0%Hispanic 42 7.2% 8.7% 16.7% 4.4% 12.2% 5.3% 2.9% 3.1%Black or African American 45 4.8% 4.3% 20.8% 12.1% 12.2% 2.7% 8.6% 3.1%Asian 61 16.9% 2.9% 4.2% 5.5% 4.6% 32.0% 5.7% 21.9%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%



x Under-representation in intervention services, resources, access to programs and rigorous curriculum and instruction.

x Higher incidence rates for certain populations in specific special education categories, such as cognitively impaired or emotionally disabled.

x Excessive incidence, duration, and types of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions experienced by minority students.41

Researchers have recognized that disproportionality produces inequitable opportunities to learn. While special education services can provide access to additional educational opportunities, they can also serve to “stigmatize children and marginalize them from general education… [and there is] ample evidence indicating that groups who are disproportionately represented in special education are negatively affected by factors such as stigmatization, lowered expectations, fewer opportunities to learn, substandard instruction, and isolation from the general education environment.” 42 Lower expectations can lead to diminished academic and post-secondary opportunities for students with disabilities.

Significant Disproportionality Indicators

States must collect and examine data for each of their districts annually to determine if significant disproportionality based on race or ethnicity is occurring with respect to:

x the identification of children as children with disabilities, including identification of children with particular disabilities;

x the placement of children in particular educational environments; and x the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions/expulsions.

These data are collected and reported under Indicators 4, 9, and 10 of the SPP. If significant disproportionality is identified, states must: (1) provide for the review and, if appropriate, revision of policies, procedures, and practices; (2) require SPS to reserve the maximum amount of funds (15%) to be used for CCEIS (Comprehensive Coordinated Early. Intervening Services); and (3) require SPS to publicly report on the revision of policies, procedures, and practices.43

SPS was found to be in compliance with Indicators 4, 9 and 1044 for the previous three years.

Risk Ratios by Race/Ethnicity and Disability One of the most useful, informative, and proactive methods used to calculate disproportionality “is the risk ratio, which compares one racial/ethnic group's risk of receiving special education and related services to that of all other students.”45 The risk ratio can be used to calculate disproportionality at both the state and district levels. The risk ratio tool tells school personnel how the risk for one racial/ethnic group compares to the risk for a comparison group.46 It can be used to assess:

x How much more likely is it for Black or African American students to be classified disabled compared to all other students?

41 Effectively Utilizing Data To Inform Decision-Making (Disproportionality), LRE Training Module Office of Special Education New Jersey Department of Education 2015/2016 School Year 42 Id. 43 IDEA Data Center (May, 2014). Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education: A Technical Assistance Guide (Revised), Westat, Rockville, MD, Julie Bollmer, Jim Bethel, Tom Munk, and Amy Bitterman. 44 Retrieved from the VDOE’s 2016 State Performance Plan Revision: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/special_ed_performance/division/2016-2017/spp-app/arlington.pdf 45 Bollmer, J. Bethel, et al. (2007). Using the Risk Ratio to Assess Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education at the School-District Level. The Journal of Special Education, Vol 41, Issue 3, pp. 186-198. 46 Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Special Education: A Multi-Year Disproportionality Analysis by State, Analysis Category, and Race/Ethnicity, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, February 2016.



x How much more likely is it for Black or African American students with disabilities to be suspended for more than 10 days compared to all other students with disabilities?

x What is the likelihood that a student from a particular racial or ethnic group will be classified as disabled, be given a specific disability classification, or placed in a most restrictive environment?

x What is the likelihood that a student with a disability from a particular racial or ethnic group will be suspended for more than 10 days?

As a concept, “risk” looks at the general enrollment data for each racial group along with the number of students from that group who were identified for a specified category and calculates the likelihood that a student from that racial group would be found in that particular category. The general risk equation is as follows:

As shown below, a risk ratio greater than 2.0 or a racial/ethnic group indicates over-representation, while a risk ratio less than 1.0 indicates under-representation.

PCG conducted a risk ratio analysis of SPS data to identify areas where disproportionate over-identification of students with disabilities based on disability, race, and discipline may be occurring. This tool can be used to inform ongoing analysis and monitoring.

The state of Massachusetts calculates a ratio of 3.0 or higher as at risk for disproportionality which can impact the use of IDEA funds. In the state’s calculation, any subgroup with less than 20 students total and 6 in a specific disability area are suppressed for state reporting. For our analyses, PCG did not suppress disability categories in a specific racial group when the total racial group was more than 20. It should be noted that numerous subgroups are small. As such, these risk ratios should be used for guidance and planning purposes only.



Exhibit 22. Risk Ratios by Race/Ethnicity and Disability, 2018-1947

In SPS:48

x Black or African American students were over two and a half times as likely to be identified as having a specific learning disability and other health impairment, and almost twice as likely to be identified with a developmental delay.

x Hispanic students were almost over one and a half times more likely to be identified as having an emotional disability, and two and a half times more likely to be identified as having a specific learning disability.

x White students were three times as likely to be identified with an emotional disability, twice as likely to be identified with other health impairment and developmental delay, and one and a half times more likely to be identified with a specific learning disability.

x Asian students are at risk of being under identified in every disability category, with the exception of speech or language impairment.

47 Excluding the following race/ethnicity groups due to n<10; American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 48 Data for Race/Ethnicity charts is from SPS, provided to PCG in October 2019 based on End of SY 2018-19.

Asian Black or AfricanAmerican Hispanic Two or More

Races White

Autism 0.50 0.06 1.39 1.43 1.34Emotional Disability 0.07 0.88 1.70 0.83 3.14Intellectual Disability 0.11 5.11 3.57 0.80 0.95Other Health Impairment 0.14 2.67 0.82 1.07 2.11Specific Learning Disability 0.12 2.70 2.49 0.88 1.53Speech/ Language Impairment 1.16 0.53 1.01 1.03 0.96Developmental Delay 0.15 1.82 0.53 1.72 2.31

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Lower/ No Risk

Higher Risk



Incidence Rates by Race/Ethnicity in Early Childhood Settings The information below reflects data for SPS early childhood students who received special education services, by race/ethnicity, to consider the extent to which there is disproportionality.

Exhibit 23. Percent of SPS Students with IEPs (Age 3-5) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19

Of early childhood students with IEPs, the majority are White (66.2%) or Asian (15.4%).

Asian15.4%

Black or African

American6.2%

Hispanic4.6%

Two or More Races7.7%

White66.2%



V. Special Education Service Delivery Strengths Opportunities for Improvement

x Senior district leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to inclusive practices.

x SPS exceeds state targets for Least Restrictive Environment.

x SPS exceeds state targets for Post-Secondary outcomes.

x Students with IEPs at SPS outperformed the state average for students with disabilities on MCAS.

x Students report an accepting school atmosphere.

x Teachers are dedicated, skilled professionals.

x The district’s continuum of services is driven by programs.

x Programs lack clear entry and exit criteria. x PCG observed limited use of yield co-teaching

strategies while student shadowing. x Special educators reported inconsistent access to

training and materials. x Students with IEPs do not regularly participate in

advanced course work.

Introduction This section of the report is devoted to results, how SPS is supporting teaching and learning for students with IEPs, and how SPS provides specialized instruction, related services, and supplementary aids/services that enable students with disabilities to receive the educational benefits to which they are entitled.

While compliance indicators remain important, under the new Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) framework, the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has sharpened its focus on what happens in the classroom to promote educational benefits and improve outcomes and results for students with disabilities. This change is based on data showing that the educational outcomes of America’s children and youth with disabilities have not improved as expected, despite significant federal efforts to close achievement gaps. The accountability system that existed prior to the new one placed substantial emphasis on procedural compliance, but it often did not consider how requirements affected the learning outcomes of students.49 This shift is having a great impact in guiding the priorities of special education department nationwide, including in SPS. Districts nationwide need both to raise the level of and access to high levels of rigor as well as generate a culture of academic optimism.50

These issues have become even more significant with the March 27, 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.51 In this decision, the Court updated its prior standard for determining a school district’s provision of an appropriate education for students with disabilities. This case centered on the importance of establishing ambitious and challenging goals that enable each student to make academic progress and functional advancement and advance from grade to grade. Progress for a student with a disability, including those receiving instruction based on alternate academic achievement standards, must be appropriate in light of his/her circumstances. Furthermore, yearly progress must be more demanding than the “merely more than de minimis” standards that had been used by some lower courts. The Court made it clear that IDEA demands more. In Endrew, the Supreme Court

49 April 5, 2012, RDA Summary, U.S. Department of Education. www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/rdasummary.doc 50 Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. Working Paper. The Ohio State University. http://www.waynekhoy.com/school-academic-optimism/ 51 Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf



reached a balance between the standard established by the 10th Circuit and other circuits (more than de minimis) and the higher standard promoted by Endrew’s parents (the goal of providing students with disabilities opportunities to achieve academic success, attain self-sufficiency, and contribute to society that are substantially equal to the opportunities afforded children without disabilities).

The Endrew decision’s most significant impact in the classroom can be seen in: (1) the design and development of rigorous Individualized Education Programs (IEPs); (2) the implementation of students’ IEPs with fidelity; and (3) increased progress monitoring of IEP goals.

The recommendations in this report serve to bolster the OSEP’s recent shift toward improving instructional outcomes.

State Performance Plan (SPP) and Results Driven Accountability (RDA) The United States Department of Education (USDE), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has established State Performance Plan (SPP) requirements that include 17 indicators. Based on requirements set by OSEP, each state is required to develop annual targets and monitor Local Education Agency (LEA) performance on each special education indicator. The state must report annually to the public on its overall performance and on the performance of each of its LEAs according to the targets in

its SPP. Both states and LEAs receive one of the following “determinations” annually: 1) meets the requirements and purposes of the IDEA; 2) needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA; 3) needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; 4) needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA. Annual determinations dictate the amount of oversight or monitoring a state or LEA may receive the following year. SPS received a “Meets Requirements” determination for both 2015-16 and 2016-17.52

OSEP has been criticized in past years that the SPP indicators are heavily focused on compliance and have limited focus on results for students with disabilities. As a result, in 2013, the Department announced its intention to change this practice and to include test scores, graduation rates, and post-school outcomes as the basis of the new Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) structure. The intent of RDA is to strike a balance between the focus on improved

results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities, while still adhering to the compliance requirements of IDEA. RDA is designed to be transparent and understandable and to drive the improved academic and functional achievement for students with IEPs. The SPP indicator data collected takes on additional importance now that OSEP has moved to the RDA framework, as there are points associated with both a “Part B Compliance Matrix” and a “Part B Results Driven Accountability Matrix.” Taken 52 Retrieved from the VDOE’s 2016 State Performance Plan Revision: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/special_ed_performance/division/2016-2017/index.shtml

IDEA Part B Indicators x Indicator 1: Graduation Rate x Indicator 2: Dropout Rate x Indicator 3: Assessment (Participation and

Performance) x Indicator 4: Rates of Suspension x Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Age

6-21 x Indicator 6: Preschool LRE, Age 3-5 x Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes x Indicator 8: Parent Involvement x Indicators 9, 10: Disproportionate Representation Due

to Inappropriate Identification x Indicator 11: Timely Initial Evaluations x Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition x Indicator 13: Secondary Transition x Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes x Indicators 15, 16: Dispute Resolution x Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan



together, these scores constitute an RDA Determination and conclude whether districts and, ultimately states, meet IDEA requirements. For the past two years SPS received an RDA determination of “Meets Requirements” with an 88% score for 2015-16 and 93% for 2016-17.

This section provides context for special education programming by reporting special education prevalence rates based on various subgroups of students, including analysis by disability type, race/ethnicity, and gender. Specifically, it addresses data pertaining to the overall percentage of students with IEPs based on total student enrollment and disability area, comparisons to state and national data, and composition by race/ethnicity. This information provides an overall background for understanding the disparate characteristics of students who receive special education services. Data from the SPP indicators are also presented to benchmark SPS against state and national averages in specific areas.

It should be noted that comparative data, especially when looking at different state and national figures, should be interpreted with caution. These data are the best available comparisons, but varied state eligibility criteria may contribute to differences in percentages of students served in special education, as noted in an April 2019 U.S. Government Accountability Office report.53

Massachusetts Public School Monitoring During the 2018-2019 school year, SPS participated in a Tiered Focused Monitoring Review conducted by the Department’s Office of Public School Monitoring. The purpose of the Tiered Focused Monitoring Review is to monitor compliance with regulatory requirements focusing on special education and civil rights. Districts are reviewed every three years through Tiered Focused Monitoring.

SPS was found to be compliant on Indicators 11, 12 and 13. SPS was found to have full implementation of all but one Special Education and Civil Rights compliance criteria (34 criteria found implemented). “Transfer of parental rights at age of majority and student participation and consent at the age of majority” (SE7) was found to be “partially implemented.” In response, SPS implemented the following action plan:

x On May 20, 2019, the District conducted training for the high school special education staff on the requirement to obtain consent from the student with decision-making authority when the student turns 18 to continue with her or his special education program.

x On June 4, 2019, the District conducted this training for the out-of-district coordinator and the middle school and high school special education leadership.

x By September 15, 2019, for those students whose records were identified by the Department, the District obtained the student's consent to continue with her or his special education program.

x In December 2019, the District conducted a review of records for special education students who have turned 18 for evidence that the District has obtained consent for those students with decision-making authority to continue with their special education program. For any records not in compliance, the District will determine the root cause and implement the necessary corrective actions.

x In December 2019, SPS was found to be compliant with SE7.

Academic Optimism and Growth Mindset The current achievement levels for students with disabilities nationwide are still behind that of their counterparts, which suggests that providing schools with extra funds and an aligned curriculum alone will not raise student achievement. As educational leaders are being held more responsible for academic growth, it is necessary not only to adequately identify those factors but to understand how a culture of academic optimism can cultivate a growth mindset.

53 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-348



Academic Optimism

Dr. Wayne Hoy and his colleagues suggest that connecting three important characteristics of schools can produce a potent and positive influence on academic achievement, even in the face of low socioeconomic status, previous performance, and other demographic variables such as school size or minority enrollment.54 Hoy’s definition of “academic optimism” is grounded in social cognitive theory and positive psychology. It embraces the following characteristics:

x Academic emphasis – the extent to which a school is driven by a belief system that includes high expectations for students to achieve academically

x Collective efficacy of the faculty – the belief that the faculty can make a positive difference in student learning

x Faculty’s trust in parents and students – faculty, administrators, parents, and students cooperate to improve student learning; trust and cooperation among parents, teachers and students influences student attendance, persistent learning, and faculty experimentation with new practices

The shared belief among faculty that academic achievement is important, that the faculty has the capacity to help students achieve, and that the students and parents can be trusted to cooperate with them in the effort—in brief, a school-wide confidence that students will succeed academically. A school with high “academic optimism” believes that faculty can make a difference, students can learn, and achieve high levels of academic performance. Findings from research showed that there was a significant positive relationship between teachers’ academic optimism and students’ academic achievement.

Growth Mindset

Dr. Carol Dweck’s research on fixed versus growth mindset complements Dr. Hoy’s work. Dweck’s research supports that in a fixed mindset, students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and “that's that,” and then their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never challenging themselves in order to prevent others from thinking they are not smart. In a growth mindset, students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching, and persistence. They believe everyone can get smarter if they work at it. Teachers who believe in a growth mindset that all students can learn, support the academic optimism’s construct. As teachers and students begin to believe that hard work, perseverance, and belief can change the student growth trajectory, a paradigm shift will take root within each school leading to maximum student and teacher success.55 Students who believe (or are taught) that intellectual abilities are qualities that can be developed (as opposed to qualities that are fixed) tend to show higher achievement across challenging school transitions and greater course completion rates.56

A culture of “academic optimism” in special education will create an environment where growth mindset can be cultivated. This supports the academic optimism’s construct and sets high expectations for the instruction, support and services delivered to students with disabilities, which will lead to greater student achievement. The development of a growth mindset is critical for all students, especially for students who struggle and students who are high achievers.

54 Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. Working Paper. The Ohio State University. http://www.waynekhoy.com/school-academic-optimism/ 55 Dweck, Carol. S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Constable & Robinson Limited, 2012. 56 Yeager, David Scott; Dweck, Carol S. Mindsets that Promote Resilience: When students Believe that Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed, Educational Psychologist, v47 n4 p302-314 2012.



District Practices

SPS stakeholder groups, including parents, noted that the expectations for students with disabilities can vary greatly between schools, grades, and teachers. Some expressed that students with disabilities are routinely exposed to high levels of rigor and that supports are in place to help them achieve. Others noted that, in some cases, work is simplified for these students and does not challenge their thinking in new or interesting ways. These findings were reiterated during student shadowing. The concepts of academic optimism and growth mindset for students with disabilities did not appear to be commonly understood or used as a framework in SPS documentation.

Staff Survey Responses Related to High Expectations

Exhibit 24. The general education teaching staff have high expectations for students with disabilities.

Exhibit 25. The special education teaching staff, including related service providers, have high expectations for students with disabilities.

89%54%

69%67%

91%79%81%

6%27%

13%17%

9%14%11%

5%19%19%17%

7%8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=226)


76%

62%

69%

100%

100%

79%

79%

8%

15%

6%

14%

8%

16%

23%

25%

7%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

General Education Teaher (n=109)

Instructional Assistant (n=26)

Other School-based staff (n=16)

Related Service Provider (n=12)

Special Education Teacher (n=35)

Student Support Services (n=29)

All Roles (n=227)




Exhibit 26. School administrators have high expectations for students with disabilities.

Parent Survey Responses Related to High Expectations

Exhibit 27. My child’s teachers have high expectations for my child.

Early Childhood Most 3- to 5-year-olds with disabilities learn best when they attend early childhood programs alongside their peers without disabilities to the greatest extent possible. These settings provide both language and behavioral models that assist in children’s development and help all children learn to be productively engaged with diverse peers. Studies have shown that when children with disabilities are included in the regular classroom setting, they demonstrate higher levels of social play, are more likely to initiate activities, and show substantial gains in key skills—cognitive skills, motor skills, and self-help skills.57 Participating in activities with typically developing peers allows children with disabilities to learn through modeling, and this learning helps them prepare for the real world. Researchers have found that typically developing children in inclusive classrooms are better able to accept differences and are more likely to see their classmates achieving despite their disabilities. They are also more aware of the needs of others. The importance of inclusive education is underscored by a federal requirement, which requires that the extent to which young children (three to five years of age) receive the majority of their services in regular early childhood programs, i.e., inclusively or in separate settings, be included as a state performance-plan indicator.

57 Book Chapter: How Do Children Benefit from Inclusion?.(http://archive.brookespublishing.com/documents/gupta-how-children-benefit-from-inclusion.pdf )

69%50%

56%92%

83%79%

70%

11%23%

8%14%

10%12%

20%27%

44%

3%10%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=227)


64%83%

71%73%74%73%

18%9%

14%14%

15%14%

18%9%

16%14%

10%13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






Early Childhood Educational Settings

Exhibit 28. Percentage of Students (Age 3-5) by Educational Setting for SPS & State SPP Targets, 2015-16 to 2017-1858

x Majority of time in regular early childhood program. For the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years, SPS has not met the state target related to early childhood students with IEPs educated in the regular early childhood program. SPS was below the state target by 2 percentage points in 2015-16, 9.4 percentage points in 2016-17, and 15.6 percentage points in 2017-18.

x Separate setting. For the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school year, SPS did not meet the state target related to early childhood students with IEPs educated in separate settings. In the 2017-18 school year, SPS was 5.2 percentage points higher than the state target.

Achievement Outcomes for Preschool Students with IEPs

One of the indicators in Massachusetts’s SPP relates to the achievement of young children with disabilities in three areas: 1) appropriate behavior, 2) acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, and 3) positive social/emotional skills. In each of these three areas, calculations are made on the percentage of children in the following two areas: (1) children who entered an early childhood program below developmental expectations for their age but who have substantially increased developmentally by age six when they exit a program, and (2) children functioning within expectations by age six or have attained those expectations by the time they exit the program.

Summarized below are the District’s performance ratings in three categories for each of the two reported areas (substantially increased skills and functioning within standards). The figures show the percentages of children meeting standards and each of the state’s targets during 2015-16, the most recent year the District reported the information to the state.59 An analysis of these data follows the exhibits.

58 Data retrieved from State Performance Plan public reports: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/special_ed_performance 59 Data retrieved from State Performance Plan public reports: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/reports_plans_stats/special_ed_performance

41.0% 43.0% 35.60%45.0%

31.40%47.0%

15.4% 13.2%13.30%

12.8%17.60%

12.4%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

SPS State Target SPS State Target SPS State Target

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Majority of time in regular early childhood program Separate setting



Exhibit 29. Preschool Outcomes: Indicator 7a- Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships). SPS and State Targets, 2015-16

For indicator 7a, SPS met the state target for the percentage of students entering below age expectations, however, it did not meet the target for the percentage of students functioning within age expectations.

Exhibit 30. Preschool Outcomes: Indicator 7b- Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy). SPS and State Targets, 2015-16

For indicator 7b, SPS was below the state target for the percentage of students entering below age expectations by 20 percentage points and was below the state target for the percentage of students functioning within age expectations by 27.5 percentage points.

100.0%87.5%

100.0% 90.0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2015-16 2015-16

% entered below ageexpectations

% functioning within ageexpectations

SPS Performance

State Target

80.0%

62.5%

100.0%90.0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2015-16 2015-16



SPS Performance

State Target



Exhibit 31. Preschool Outcomes: Indicator 7c- Use of appropriate behavior to meet their needs. SPS and State Targets, SPS and State Targets, 2015-16

For indicator 7c, SPS was below the state target for the percentage of students functioning within age expectations by 15 percentage points.

Early Childhood Services

The Early Childhood program is housed in the same building as the Middle School and the School District Administrative Offices. There are 4 classrooms, with a combination of full and half day offerings. Early Childhood programming was reported to have an inclusive feel. Many parent focus group participants noted a positive experience with the integrated preschool.

Exhibit 32. Early Childhood Services, 2018-19

Program Name Description

The Children's Center

The Children's Center is an early childhood program that provides an integrated preschool serving children from the ages of three to five.

Integrated Preschool Classrooms

Children with special needs in the integrated classes demonstrate a significant delay (six months or more) in two or more areas of development: cognition, speech and language, social/emotional growth and fine or gross motor skills.

Typically developing children who enroll in the program serve as role models for children with special needs.

Early Childhood Substantially Separate Program

This program is a comprehensive program for children who would benefit from a setting that utilizes the principles of Applied Behavioral Analysis combined with traditional teaching and incidental teaching methods. Individualized programs and direct instruction focus on pre-academics, communication, self-care, adaptive behavior, fine and gross motor skill development using systematic approaches and structure. As appropriate, children have opportunities for inclusion and reverse integration for social skills as well as generalization of previously taught skills.

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%90.0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2015-16 2015-16



SPS Performance

State Target



Transition to Kindergarten

Focus group participants shared the transition from preschool to Kindergarten can be challenging for some students. The Early Childhood Director and the principals try to meet and talk to plan, but this is not a consistent practice. Teachers from both preschool and elementary school indicated the desire for more collaboration between preschool and Kindergarten, with more observations prior to a student’s move to Kindergarten. Several parents who participated in focus groups reported frustration with the transition process to Kindergarten.

School-Age Programming Special education is defined under IDEA as specially designed instruction to:

x Address the unique needs of a student that result from his/her disability; and x Ensure the student’s access to the general education curriculum, so that he/she can meet the

educational standards that apply to all students.60

IDEA, which is supplemented by Massachusetts provisions, establishes standards for the provision of students with disabilities who need special education and related services, including their education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) based on an IEP. A complex system of procedural safeguards governs this process.

Research has consistently reported a positive relationship between inclusive and effective instruction and better outcomes for students with disabilities, including higher academic performance, higher likelihood of employment, higher participation rates in postsecondary education, and greater integration within communities. Also, research reports that the inclusion of students with a range of disabilities in general education classes benefits the achievement of their nondisabled peers.61 Inclusive education is effective when conditions, such as the following, are in place: differentiated instruction, thoughtful scheduling, appropriate and adaptive materials, flexible groupings, and well-trained special and general educators and related service personnel who collaborate and co-plan.

All but a small percentage of students with an IEP take a regular state assessment. When special educators teach students from as many as four grades in one class, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to focus on each grade’s standards with any depth or effectiveness. When schools are organized in an inclusive manner, they are better able to support students with various disabilities and enable more to attend the school they would otherwise attend if not disabled; that is, their home school. This model enables more students with disabilities to attend school within their community, supports a more natural proportion of students with disabilities in each school, and reduces transportation time and costs.

This section of the report explores the extent to which SPS has supported the provision of special education and related services in a manner that is aligned with this research. How teachers effectively educate students with varying learning differences in inclusive learning environments is a reflection of the overall quality of the instruction of students with disabilities.

60 IDEA regulation at 34 CFR 300.29. 61 See Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., and Kaplan, I. (2007, December). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365-382.



Effective Teaching and Maximized Learning in the Least Restrictive Environment

Creating an environment in which every student, including those with and those without disabilities, can learn and succeed individually, and the way in which a school community supports all students, is at the core of inclusion.62 Research has consistently shown a positive relationship between effective and inclusive instruction and better outcomes for students with disabilities, including higher academic performance, higher likelihood of employment, higher participation rates in postsecondary education, and greater integration into the community.63 Research also shows that including students with a range of disabilities in general education classes does not affect the achievement of their nondisabled peers.64

Students with disabilities in inclusive environments also gain additional benefits that extend beyond academics. They develop friendships with nondisabled peers, learning appropriate behaviors and communication skills from them and understanding how to navigate social situations.65 And when in classes with nondisabled students, those with disabilities benefit from the enriched educational experience and are often held to a higher academic expectation both from their peers and their teachers. Inclusive schools with school-wide behavioral supports help to establish high expectations throughout the community. Consistency and structure are critical for students with disabilities but are equally important for all students.

For families, inclusion allows for students and their families to not only be a part of the school community but often helps them to be a part of the neighborhood as well. For students without disabilities, having disabled peers in their classroom gives them the opportunity to appreciate and learn about those who are different. It can prepare them for an inclusive society and how to be respectful and accepting.

Despite the clear benefits of inclusion, implementation in districts across the country, and in SPS schools, varies. The following section describes the current state of inclusive practices within SPS, starting with an analysis of educational setting data followed by supports for students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

Educational Environment Rates for School-Age Students with Disabilities

The data in this section reflect the educational settings of SPS school-aged students overall, by disability areas, and race/ethnicity. In addition, District data are compared to state and national data, and State Performance Plan (SPP) targets for the three educational setting categories monitored by ED’s Office of Special Education Programs and DESE for students age 6-21.66 The department also requires each state to monitor and set targets in their SPP for educational settings in which students with IEPs are educated.

Overall Educational Setting Data for SPS and State

Longitudinal data from 2015-16 to 2017-18 indicates SPS students with disabilities were educated more frequently in an inclusive general education setting and less frequently in a separate setting. While the

62 http://inclusiveschools.org/together-we-learn-better-inclusive-schools-benefit-all-children/ 63 Roden, L., Borgemenke, A, & Holt, W. (2013). Improving the Academic Achievement of Students with Disabilities. National Forum of Special Education Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1. 64 See A. Kalambouka, P. Farrell, A. Dyson, & I. Kaplan. (2007, December). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365–382. 65 Id. 66 MA DESE follows this federal guidance on how to report students by education environment: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/14795



majority of students are educated in an inclusive general education setting, exceeding the state target between 2015-16 to 2017-18, a small year over year decline occurred.

x General Education Setting more than 80% of the time. SPS’s 2017-18 rate of 66.6% was 5.1 percentage points higher than the state target of ≥61.5%. In 2015-16 and 2016-17, SPS was 11.9 and 9.5 percentage points higher than the state target, respectively.

x General Education Setting less than 40% of the time. SPS has met the state target for students served in general education less than 40% of the time each of the past three years. From 2015-16 to 2017-18, the percentage of students served in this category has ranged between 7.8% and 8.5%.

x Separate Setting. Between 2015-16 and 2017-18, SPS did not meet the state target for students served in this setting. While the state target ranged between 5.5% and 5.4%, SPS’s average ranged between 7.0% and 8.3%.

Exhibit 33. Percentage of Students (Age 6-21) by Educational Setting for SPS & State SPP Targets, 2015-16 to 2017-18

Overall Educational Setting Data for SPS and Comparable Districts

Among the 7 comparable districts, students with disabilities at SPS were educated less frequently in the least restrictive environment (80% or more of the school day spent in general education). Out of all 8 districts, SPS had the 3rd largest number of students in general education for less than 40% of the school day.

x General Education Setting more than 80% of the time. SPS’s 2017-18 rate of 66.6% was lower than seven of the comparable districts. The following school districts had slightly higher, but similar rates, compared to SPS: Wellesley (66.9%) and Westwood (66.9%). Weston educated 76.6% of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.

x General Education Setting less than 40% of the time. SPS educated 8.5% of students with disabilities in a general education setting less than forty percent of the school day. This percentage was higher than five of the comparable school districts. The following school districts had a higher percent than SPS: Franklin (11.4%) and Canton (10.1%).

72.9%61.0%

70.5%61.0% 66.6% 61.5%

8.1%14.5%

7.8%14.4% 8.5% 14.4%

7.0%5.5%

8.3%5.4% 7.1% 5.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SPS State Target SPS State Target SPS State Target

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

80% or more less than 40% Separate Settings



x Separate Setting. SPS’s percentage of students educated in a separate setting was smaller than four of seven comparable districts. The following districts had a larger percentage of students educated in a separate setting: Canton (8.8%), Wellesley (8.4%), Weston (8.1%), and Franklin (7.7%).

Exhibit 34. Percentage of Students by Educational Setting (Age 6-21) for Comparable Districts, 2017-18

Educational Setting by Primary Disability Area

The charts below provide data on the SPS students by primary disability area and educational setting.

x General Education Setting more than 80% of the time. Students with primary disabilities of the following are educated at a higher percentage in the full inclusion setting than the overall SPS average of 65.6%: developmental delay (80.0%), speech or language impairment (80.0%), other health impairment (80.2%), specific learning disability (79.4%), emotional disability (79.2%). Primary disabilities of autism and intellectual disability had a lower percentage of students educated in this setting than the SPS average. Only 4.2% of students with an intellectual disability were educated in general education more than 80% of the time. In addition, 42.2% of students with autism were educated in this full inclusion setting.

x General Education Setting 40-79% of the time. Students with an intellectual disability comprised the largest portion of students educated in this setting at 29.2%, followed by students with the following disabilities: autism (21.7%), specific learning disability (18.3%), and developmental delay (17.1%).

x General Education Setting less than 40% of the time. Students with an intellectual disability and autism comprised the largest portion of students educated in this setting at 58.3% and 20.5% respectively.

SharonPublic

SchoolsBrookline Canton Easton Franklin Wellesley Weston Westwood

Separate 7.1% 6.5% 8.8% 4.6% 7.7% 8.4% 8.1% 2.7%<40% 8.5% 7.7% 10.1% 4.4% 11.4% 5.0% 1.2% 6.5%79-40% 17.8% 16.6% 9.1% 22.8% 7.5% 19.6% 14.0% 23.9%>80% 66.6% 69.3% 71.9% 68.1% 73.4% 66.9% 76.6% 66.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



x Separate Setting. Disability types with the highest percentage of students served in a separate setting included emotional disability (30.2%) and autism (15.7%).

Exhibit 35. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) by Disability Area and Educational Setting, 2018-196768

Percentage of Students by Disability Category: District, State, and Nation Comparisons in Inclusive Settings

The chart below provides data on SPS students by disability area and the two most inclusive educational settings: ≥80% and 40-79%.69

67 Source: Data provided by SPS to PCG in October 2019, based on last day of SY 2018-19 . 68 Other Includes: Hearing Impairment, Multiple Disabilities, Orthopedic Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Visual Impairment 69 Data Source: : Data provided by SPS to PCG in October 2019, based on last day of SY 2018-19. State and National Data FFY 17: https://osep.grads360.org/#report/apr/2017B/publicView?state=MA&ispublic=true

Autism Dev. Delay EmotionalDisability

IntellectualDisability Other Other Heath

Impairment


Speech orLanguageImpairment

≥80% 42.2% 80.0% 79.2% 4.2% 50.0% 80.2% 79.4% 80.0%40-79% 21.7% 17.1% 11.3% 29.2% 15.6% 14.3% 18.3% 12.0%<40% 20.5% 0.0% 9.4% 58.3% 15.6% 2.2% 0.8% 6.7%Separate 15.7% 2.9% 30.2% 8.3% 18.8% 3.3% 1.5% 1.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

≥80% 40-79% <40% Separate



Exhibit 36. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with SLD, OHI, and ED by Educational Setting, 2018-19

x Emotional Disability. Compared to the state and national rates, SPS educated a substantially higher percentage of students with an emotional disability in the general education setting for more than 80% of the time. SPS’s rate was 79.2% compared to 47.0% and 48.0% in the state and nation respectively.

x Other Health Impairments. SPS students with health impairments were educated at a higher rate (78.8%) in general education for more than 80% of the time, compared to the state and nation, 70.4% and 66.4% respectively.

x Specific Learning Disability. SPS students with a specific learning disability were educated at a lower rate (62.8%) in the full inclusion setting (more than 80% of the time) than the state rate or nation, 71.7% and 70.8% respectively.

Exhibit 37. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with Autism, ID, and SLI by Educational Setting, 2018-19

x Autism. Compared to the state and nation, SPS had slightly more students with autism educated in the general education classroom for 80% or more of the school day. Additionally, SPS had more students educated in the 40-79% setting (21.7%) compared to the state (14.1%) or nation (18.2%).

SPS State Nation SPS State Nation SPS State NationEmotional Disability Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability

40-79% 11.3% 11.5% 17.4% 14.3% 13.5% 20.4% 18.3% 16.5% 21.6%≥80% 79.2% 47.0% 48.0% 80.2% 78.4% 66.7% 79.4% 76.9% 71.6%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

SPS State Nation SPS State Nation SPS State Nation

Autism Intellectual Disability Speech/ LanguageImpairment

40-79% 21.7% 14.1% 18.2% 29.2% 19.1% 26.7% 12.0% 16.7% 4.9%≥80% 42.2% 40.5% 39.4% 4.2% 14.8% 17.0% 80.0% 74.3% 87.2%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%



x Intellectual Disability. Of SPS students with an intellectual disability, 4.2% were educated in general education for 80% or more of the day compared to 14.8% and 17.0% in the state and nation respectively. SPS had a higher percentage of students being educated in the 40-79% setting (29.2%) compared to the state (19.1%) and nation (26.7%).

x Speech or Language Impairment SPS students with a speech or language impairment were educated for more than 80% of the day in general education at a higher rate when compared to the state, 80.0% and 74.3% respectively, however, the rate was lower than the nation (87.2%).

Separate Settings

The graph below shows the percent of SPS students with disabilities who were educated in separate settings, disaggregated by disability type. Students with a primary disability of emotional disability, autism, and multiple disabilities constituted the largest portion of students educated in a separate setting with 36.4%, 29.5%, and 9.1% respectively. Students with other health impairment, specific learning disability, and intellectual disability represented a smaller portion of the students in a separate setting.

Exhibit 38. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with Disabilities by Disability in Separate Settings, 2018-19

Autism29.5%

Developmental Delay2.3%

Emotional Disability

36.4%

Intellectual Disability

4.5%

Multiple Disabilities

9.1%

Other Health Impairment

6.8%

Specific Learning Disability

4.5%

Speech/Langauge Impairment

2.3%

Neurological Disability

4.5%



Exhibit 39. Percentage of SPS Students (Age 6-21) with Disabilities by Separate Setting, 2018-19

Of students in a separate setting, 60.5% are in a private day school, 18.6% are in a public separate school and 16.3 are in a private residential school.

Educational Setting by Race/Ethnicity

The following race and ethnicity groups met or exceeded the all district average for students with disabilities educated 80% or more of the day in general education (66.5%): Two or More Races (71.4%), Black or African American (68.9%), White (68.5%). Asian and Hispanic students with disabilities had the lowest rate of inclusion in the general education setting at 65.6% and 45.2% respectively. These averages were below the district average for all students with disabilities. White students and those with Two or More races were educated in separate settings at a higher rate (9.7% and 10.7%, respectively) compared to the district average (8.1%).

Exhibit 40. Percentage of SPS Students with Disabilities (Age 6-21) by Race and Educational Setting, 2018-1970

70 Excluding the following race/ethnicity groups due to n<10; American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Private Day School60.5%

Private Residential

16.3%

Public Separate School18.6%

Public Residential

4.7%

Asian Black or AfricanAmerican Hispanic Two or more races White

Separate 4.9% 4.4% 2.4% 10.7% 9.7%<40% 16.4% 6.7% 19.0% 3.6% 7.2%40-79% 13.1% 20.0% 33.3% 14.3% 14.6%≥80% 65.6% 68.9% 45.2% 71.4% 68.5%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%



Staff Survey Responses Related to Least Restrictive Environment

Exhibit 41. IEP teams discuss instruction and support in general education classes to the maximum extent possible (LRE) in making service recommendations for students with disabilities.

Parent Survey Responses Related to LRE

Exhibit 42. At your child’s most recent IEP meeting, did the team discuss receiving special education services in the general education class to the maximum extent appropriate?

Supporting Instruction and Inclusion in the General Education Setting

Researchers note that when students with disabilities are included in the general education setting they have better academic outcomes, stronger peer relations, and a higher self-esteem.71 Developing an inclusive culture that is fully accepting and successfully functioning across a district, and in individual school buildings, requires coordinated vision and leadership. There is no place called inclusion— “inclusion is not a student, a classroom, or a school. Rather, inclusion is a belief that ALL students, regardless of labels, should be members of the general education community.”72

For all students, including those with IEPs, to meet high academic standards and fully demonstrate their knowledge and skills in reading, writing, speaking, listening and mathematics, their instruction must be flexible, yet challenging, and incorporate scaffolds and accommodations to overcome potential learning barriers. As noted in current literature, it is essential that that the curriculum be designed to enable all

71 Braunsteiner, Maria-Luise & Mariano-Lapidus, Susan (2014). A perspective on inclusion: Challenges for the future. Global Education Review, 1 (1). 32-43. 72 Pratt, C. (1997). There is no place called inclusion. The Reporter, 2(3), 4-5, 13-14. Accessed at: https://www.iidc.indiana.edu/pages/There-is-No-Place-Called-Inclusion

75%56%

52%67%

86%76%

72%

13%0%

24%25%

14%7%

13%

12%44%

24%8%

0%17%15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=238)


100%85%

83%91%

79%85%

12%13%

9%10%

11%

4%4%

10%5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Yes No Don't Know



students to successfully access and engage in learning without changing or reducing instructional goals.73 To meet the needs of all diverse learners in the classroom, implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Differentiated Instruction, Accommodations and Modifications, and Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) based to the support access and success of the learners.

With the shift to inclusive philosophies and integrated practices, special education personnel have begun to recognize that their roles are not static but based on individual student needs. The emphasis now is on increasing the quality and amount of in-class support offered inside the general education classroom. In addition, services in traditional “pull-out” classrooms are changing. Although fewer students with disabilities now require services in these specialized settings, these classrooms must be reconceptualized to provide highly focused and more effective interventions and support.74

PCG looked for evidence related to quality inclusive practices in the following areas:

1) Clear and Consistent Vision and Vocabulary 2) Strong Tier 1 Instruction 3) Effective In-Class Support Practices and Use of High Yield Strategies 4) Communication and Collaboration Among Educators 5) Staffing and Scheduling 6) Effective Use of Resources 7) Social Inclusion

Clear and Consistent Vision and Vocabulary

x The district’s strategic plan has specific language and strategic objectives around inclusive practices. Inclusion is a key tenet of the strategic plan.

x Senior district leadership exhibit a belief in meaningful academic opportunities and high expectations for all students.

x Districtwide vision for inclusive education is inconsistently implemented at the school level. Expectations vary by school and are dependent on the building administrator.

x Language used by some general education focus group participants suggested that many teachers do not embrace the mindset that “all students are our kids.”

Strong Tier 1 Instruction

x During student shadowing, classroom teachers appeared to be highly skilled, knowledgeable professionals.

x Classroom environments were warm and welcoming. x At all grade levels, students were engaged, respectful, and ready to learn. x Whole group instruction appeared to be the predominant method of instruction. x Limited differentiation was observed. This was particularly notable for math instruction across all

elementary buildings. In every class observed, all students were working on the same task in either math workbooks or worksheets.

Effective In-Class Support Practices and Use of High Yield Strategies

x PCG observed limited use of yield co-teaching strategies while student shadowing. When observed, co-teachers relied on the “one teach, one assist” model.

73 http://www.readingrockets.org/article/universal-design-learning-meeting-needs-all-students; https://www.cec.sped.org/Publications/CEC-Journals/TEACHING-Exceptional-Children/TEC-Plus/Universal-Design-for-Learning-in-Action-The-Smart-Inclusion-Toolkit 74 https://stetsonassociates.com/new-models-of-support/



x PCG noted a heavy reliance on Instructional Assistants to provide in-class supports. This role typically involved sitting next to 1-2 students while they performed their work and offering redirection as needed. Some classes had multiple IAs in the room.

x Most special educators observed in co-taught settings served in a support role. x Effective use of Assistive Technology was observed in some classrooms. x During student shadowing most students appeared to receive accommodations outlined in their

IEPs. x High school teachers in focus groups expressed wanting more co-teaching and less foundations

courses to give students’ greater access to more peer role models. x The district does not offer or require co-teaching pairs to jointly participate in co-teaching

professional development. x In-class supports are reported to be limited at the middle and high school level for students not in

a specialized program.

Specialized Instruction

x Special educators at all levels do not all have consistent training to deliver multi-sensory, structured literacy instruction. An inventory recently created by the Director of Student Services confirmed this inconsistency. Teachers receive a $350 stipend for professional development as part of their salary. However, many focus group participants reported paying for additional training or certifications out of pocket.

x Special educators also reported inconsistent access to materials. Some teachers reported purchasing their own materials, borrowing them from colleagues in other districts, or using old materials from other districts. Others reported using incomplete or out of date sets.

x Teachers reported receiving no guidance on what materials to use. As such, several special educators in focus groups reported creating their own materials and expressed concern they are not best supporting students.

x Most pull out services observed by PCG at the elementary level were led by IAs. The quality and efficacy of this instruction greatly varied. For example, in one observation two students spent 30 minutes completing a math worksheet with limited support and negative redirection from the IA.

x Students at the middle and high school level receive services in the Academic Lab setting. While most focus group participants indicated that this period provides valuable supports to students, it was noted that it impacts students’ ability to participate in elective classes.

Communication and Collaboration Among Educators

x Although collaborative planning structures are in place, teachers at all levels report insufficient time for collaborative planning between general and special educators.

x High school teachers only teach four blocks and have teacher collaboration daily in addition to their planning period. This perceived lack of time may be more a matter of prioritization.

x There is built in time in the schedule for special educators consult with general educators. General educators reported this consult time to be valuable. However, it was also reported that IEP meetings are frequently scheduled during this same block.

x Special educators are not members of a team at the high school. As noted by one general educator, “If I want to meet with a special education teacher, I have to go hunt them down.”



Staff Survey Responses Related to Communication and Collaboration

Exhibit 43. The IEP process involves general and special educators as partners when making recommendations.

Exhibit 44. There is sufficient communication between general and special educators about the needs and progress of students with IEPs.

Exhibit 45. There is sufficient communication between general/ special educators, and related services staff (OTs, Speech/Language, etc.) about the needs and progress of students with IEPs.

76%67%

60%100%

95%76%78%

20%7%

15%0%

5%14%

14%

4%26%25%

0%0%

10%8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=239)


69%

67%

43%

42%

72%

37%

62%

26%

17%

36%

42%

28%

41%

29%

5%

17%

21%

17%

0%

22%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

General Education Teacher (n=104)






All Roles (n=213)


52%

58%

47%

25%

79%

59%

56%

32%

17%

27%

67%

21%

30%

30%

15%

25%

27%

8%

0%

11%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=216)




Staffing, Scheduling and Effective Use of Resources

x Focus group participants expressed the concern that IEPs are often designed around existing programs and adult schedules instead of student need.

x It was reported that the scheduling process at the secondary level “does not feel student driven.” x There is a heavy reliance on Instructional Assistants to provide special education supports.

Staff Survey Responses related to staffing, scheduling and effective use of resources

Exhibit 46. Paraprofessionals at my school(s) are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students with IEPs.

Exhibit 47. Special education teachers at my school are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students with IEPs.

50%

81%

25%

67%

75%

45%

56%

37%

15%

44%

25%

25%

34%

32%

13%

4%

31%

8%

0%

21%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=228)


69%

88%

63%

92%

83%

76%

75%

20%

8%

6%

8%

17%

17%

16%

11%

4%

31%

7%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=228)




Exhibit 48. Related Service providers (OT, PT, Speech Therapists) at my school are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students with IEPs.

Parent Survey Responses Related to Program Quality

Exhibit 49. To your knowledge, is your child's IEP being implemented as written?

Exhibit 50. My child’s general education teachers are aware of my child’s learning needs.

62%73%

63%83%83%

76%70%

9%19%

6%8%

17%10%

11%

28%8%

31%8%

14%19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=228)


100%85%

83%91%

79%85%

12%13%

9%10%

11%

4%4%

10%5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Yes No Don't Know

82%87%

65%59%61%

68%

9%4%

20%27%24%

19%

9%9%

16%14%

16%14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






Exhibit 51. My child’s special education teachers are aware of my child's learning needs.

Exhibit 52. Special education staff are skilled in providing the services and support my child needs.

Exhibit 53. I feel my child’s academic program is preparing my child effectively for the future.

Exhibit 54. I am satisfied with my child’s overall special education services.

100%96%

84%82%

77%85%

10%9%

13%8%

4%6%

9%10%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




73%70%

67%86%

72%72%

0%9%

20%14%

18%15%

27%22%

14%0%

10%13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




45%74%

49%71%

69%61%

18%13%

20%14%

28%20%

36%13%

31%14%

3%19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




55%87%

61%68%

74%69%

36%13%

25%27%

24%24%

9%

14%5%3%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






Exhibit 55. I am satisfied with my child’s overall academic progress in school.

Staff Survey Responses Related to Program Quality

Exhibit 56. I am a valued member of the IEP team.

Exhibit 57. I feel comfortable asking questions and expressing concerns at IEP meetings.

73%78%

59%77%

61%66%

27%17%

25%23%

39%28%

4%16%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




73%

37%

52%

100%

100%

90%

75%

20%

37%

24%

0%

10%

17%

7%

26%

24%

0%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=241)


69%

24%

52%

100%

95%

83%

70%

27%

20%

14%

5%

14%

19%

4%

56%

33%

3%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=239)




Exhibit 58. IEP meetings are run efficiently and effectively, with enough time for all parties to share and discuss all needed information, and to make decisions.

Exhibit 59. Students’ IEP progress on goals are documented and reported to parents.

Exhibit 60. Student progress toward IEP goals is analyzed and discussed regularly.

Assistive Technology

There is no centralized inventory of Assistive Technology documented in the District. The district does not have an Assistive Technology Coordinator. The Technology Department actively supports Assistive

78%

27%

50%

83%

84%

69%

70%

17%

8%

25%

17%

16%

14%

16%

5%

65%

25%

0%

0%

17%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=238)


57%96%

63%92%95%

83%73%

1%

3%3%

1%

42%4%

38%8%

3%14%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=225)


50%81%

44%67%

86%52%

60%

26%4%

19%25%

14%28%

21%

24%15%

38%8%

0%21%19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=228)




Technology needs as articulated by Special Education. The middle school is nearly 1:1 and is supplemented with both laptop carts and computer labs. All elementary schools have access to iPads for classroom room.

Assistive listening has also been installed in every classroom. The contracts for most AAC / AT evaluations with Reads collaborative and have an ongoing contract with The Learning Center for the Deaf for an educational audiologist.

Specialized Programs

SPS relies on a number of district-wide programs to provide services to students with IEPs.

LEARNING CENTER

TBL NETWORKS PATHWAYS DLP ASD LEAP

COTTAGE X X

EAST X X

HEIGHTS X X X

MS X X X X X X

HS X X X X X

Learning Center or Academic Lab

All buildings have a Learning Center or Academic Lab Programs that provide small group support. In the middle and high school, students are scheduled for Academic Lab between 1-5 period/week. Additional analysis of Academic Lab is found throughout this report.

Team-Based Learning (TBL)

SPS currently supports the needs of students with emotional, social and or behavioral needs within TBL Programs (Heights, Middle, High). Students supported in these programs require ongoing therapeutic interventions across their school day. These programs use collaborative problem solving, cognitive behavioral supports, behavioral management and counseling to address social-emotional challenges. Classes are led by special education teachers trained in the use of therapeutic and academic interventions. Additional staffing includes instructional assistants and related therapy providers. Students are cognitively on grade level and receive core instruction in the general education classroom to the fullest extent possible.

At the elementary level, there are two TBL classrooms (K-2 and 3-5) with seven and eight students respectively. Students at the elementary level have significant behavioral needs Concerns were raised specific to the 3-5 program during student shadowing related to program fidelity, educational rigor and student participation in the general education setting. On the student shadowing day, students in grades 3-5 appeared to spend the most of their day in the program classroom including lunch with a significant amount of time off-task or participating in choice activities.

Networks

SPS supports the needs of students with significant mental health concerns within two district Networks programs (Middle, High). There are currently 15 students in the program. Students in these programs require ongoing cognitive behavioral therapy and small group/individual counseling to be successful in school. They are often those who struggle with mood and anxiety disorders that interfere with their ability to engage with learning and social interactions. Networks supports students who may require



hospitalization related to mental health concerns. Social Workers, trained in the use of therapeutic strategies, program assistants, related therapy providers all support students in Networks. Replacement instruction for general course content is available for students who are not able to attend general education classrooms.

Pathways

The Pathways program serves students with a range of special needs and focuses primarily on functional academics and pre-vocational and vocational education. The program is led by a special education teacher who addresses functional academics and vocational specialist who supports students’ prevocational/vocational and work-place experiences. Students balance their time in the school and working greater community. Focus is placed on functional academics, community involvement, self-advocacy, positive social interactions and post-secondary planning for young adult life. Staffing includes speech/language therapists, occupational and physical therapists, behavior analysts, guidance counselors, and psychologists. The Pathways Team work closely with Adult Program Agencies.

Developmental Learning Program (DLP)

SPS supports the needs of students who present with cognitive delays, a slower rate of learning, and receptive and/or expressive language difficulties concerns within two district DLP programs (Cottage, Middle). These students may also have difficulties in physical functioning, sensory motor skills, adaptive functioning, fine motor skills and/or self-help skills and require intervention that focuses on a highly specialized and individualized program design required to address each student’s individual needs.

Students complete some or most of their academic content in a smaller learning environment and participate in social experiences within the larger school community. Staffing includes lead special education teacher, speech/language therapists, occupational and physical therapists, behavior analysts, guidance counselors and psychologists.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Programs

There are three full-year district wide ASD Programs. For students in the program at the elementary and middle school levels, academic content is provided in a smaller learning environment using Discrete Trial Instruction or ABA – based Learning with social inclusion within the larger school community. Staffing includes special education teacher/BCBA, speech/language therapists, occupational and physical therapists, guidance counselors and psychologists. The program is located at Heights and the Middle School.

RISE Program

At the high school level, RISE supports the needs of students with Autism Spectrum related disabilities. This program is not ABA-driven.

LEAP Language Extension and Practice Program

The LEAP Program, at East Elementary and Sharon Middle School, is a language-based program for students who are receiving services through IEP in grades 2-8. There are between 5-6 students per grade in the program. It was recently developed to address the comprehensive language and literacy needs and social competency of students with language-based learning disabilities and Dyslexia/ Dysgraphia/ Dyscalculia. Staffing includes special education teachers (one per grade), speech/language therapists, occupational and physical therapists, guidance counselors and psychologists. All classes are co-taught at the middle school level. Science and Social Studies are co-taught at the elementary level.

The LEAP program was highlighted by many focus group participants, particularly parents, as an example of a strong program. Parents described it as “wonderful” and “life-changing” for their child. PCG saw evidence of high-quality instructional practices at the elementary level during student shadowing in the



pull-out setting. All co-teaching observed relied on the “one teach, one assist model.” There is not currently a LEAP program at the high school level. It was noted that a full K-12 continuum was not developed or discussed when the program was initially implemented. The district is currently working to determine how to best support the transition of 8th graders currently in the LEAP program into the high school next year.

Post-Pathways 18-22

The Post-Pathways programs is based on the high school campus and currently has 6 students. The program has a shared focus of vocational and academics. Significant time is spent on transition. On Friday afternoons, students attend a class at Bridgewater State University with students from 15 other districts. This opportunity allows them to network with a larger group of peers. Students also participated in onsite job training activities. Current employers include CVS, Marathon Sports, Meals on Wheels, clerical in SPS, Big Y, Memorial Hospital, and an animal shelter. In the first two years of the program, students participate in exploration activities. The final two years of the programs, students focus on their particular interests. The Pathways teacher teaches a pre-vocational class one period per day. There are in-school jobs for Pathways students who under 18.

Concerns with Current Continuum of Services

The following concerns were raised about the district’s current continuum of services:

x Overreliance on programs as a place to “send” students x Lack of alignment/scope and sequence of program models across schools (i.e., elementary to

middle, middle to high) x Lack of clear entry and exit criteria x Lack of long-term planning when new programs are created x Inconsistent staff understanding of program offerings

PCG observed these concerns during student shadowing.

Staff Survey Responses Related to a Continuum of Services

Exhibit 61. Students with disabilities at my school(s) are offered a continuum of services that meet their needs.

62%

81%

38%

82%

77%

59%

65%

19%

12%

44%

18%

20%

31%

22%

19%

8%

19%

0%

3%

10%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=225)




Exhibit 62. The special education program/services at my school(s) are of high quality.

Out of District Settings

Currently 42 students with IEPs ages 6-12 are placed in an approved special education program at district expense.

Course Participation and Achievement Outcomes

Advanced Courses

There was significant concern among focus group members that students with IEPs do not have the opportunity to access advanced course work. The following belief were stated:

x If a high school student has Academic Lab in their schedule, they cannot take a foreign language. x If a middle school student has Academic Lab in their schedule, elective options are limited. x Special education support is not provided for advanced or honors courses.

The following charts depict the number of total students and students with IEPs enrolled in Advanced Courses, Advanced Placement Courses, and Language Courses.

76%

92%

50%

100%

94%

79%

81%

13%

19%

6%

10%

10%

11%

8%

31%

10%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=228)




Exhibit 63. Students Enrolled in Advanced Courses, by Subject (SY2018-2019)

Exhibit 64. Students Enrolled in Advanced Placement Courses, SY2018-2019

Course Name Total Enrolled # of Students with IEPs

AP English Literature and Composition

43 0

AP Calculus AB 34 1

AP Calculus BC 19 0

AP Statistics 59 3

AP Biology 53 3

AP Chemistry 61 0

AP Physics B 16 1

AP Physics C-Mechanics 23 1

AP European History 20 1

AP US History 71 2

AP US Government and Politics

25 0

AP Economics 102 4

AP Psychology 87 2

AP Studio Art-Two Dimensional

8 0

397352

669 677

287

582

174

10 8 17 24 21 19 90

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Total # of Students # of Students w/ IEP



AP Studio Art-Three Dimensional

6 0

AP Spanish Language 21 0

AP French Language 42 0

AP Computer Science Principles

22 1

AP Computer Science A 24 1

Exhibit 65. Students Enrolled in Advanced Placement Courses, SY2018-2019

Course Name Total Enrolled # of Students with IEPs

Spanish II 72 4

Spanish III 87 0

Spanish IV 85 1

Spanish V 8 0

French II 72 2

French III 60 2

French IV 30 1

Italian II 11 0

Latin II 14 0

Latin III 12 1

Chinese II 14 2

Chinese III 23 3

Chinese IV 17 0

American Sign Language II

14 3

Achievement Outcomes

Between 2015-2016, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education piloted the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) exam to assess English language arts and literacy and mathematics for students in grades 3-8. The Department allowed Massachusetts districts to select whether they would administer the PARCC exam or the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam. At the conclusion of the pilot program, Massachusetts moved all districts to the Next Generation MCAS exam. Given the difference in



assessments, PCG analyzed learning outcome trends for the Next Generation MCAS exam for English language arts and mathematics between 2017-2019.75

English Language Arts

Grade 4. Between SY 2016-17 to 2018-19, SPS students have performed above the all-student state average, with a larger percentage of SPS students meeting or exceeding expectations. Similarly, students with IEPs at SPS outperformed the state average for students with disabilities. In 2018-19 the SPS pass rate for students with disabilities was within 11 percentage points of the all-student state average. While a larger percentage of students with disabilities at SPS meet or exceed expectations for grade 4 English language arts, the achievement gap between the all-student average is substantial. For 2018-19 the achievement gap was 22 percentage points.

Exhibit 66. Grade 4 Reading, 2016-17 to 2018-19

Grade 8. Similar to the grade 4 trends, SPS students performed above the all-student state average between 2016-17 to 2018-19 time. More students with IEPs in SPS met grade level standards compared to the state rates. The achievement gap between students with IEPs and the all-student average was more pronounced in grade 8 with a three-year average of 47 percentage points between all SPS students and students with disabilities. In 2018-19, the achievement gap between SPS students with disabilities and the all-student pass rate was 43 percentage points.

75 The MCAS exam provides assessment results for student performance as follows: Exceeding Expectations, Meeting Expectations, Partially Meeting Expectations Not Meeting Expectations. The data charts reflect students who met or exceeded expectations only.

75.0%56.0%

74.0%

38.0% 35.0%41.0%

48.0%53.0%

52.0%

14.0% 16.0% 17.0%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

SPS Pass Rate - Non Disabled

SPS Pass Rate - SWD

State Pass Rate - Non Disabled

State Pass Rate - SWD




Grade 10. State-wide, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations for grade 10 English language arts declined between 2016-17 to 2018-19, with the sharpest decline occurring in 2018-19. The decline in the pass rate for students with disabilities at SPS for 2018-19 was more pronounced (34 percentage points) compared to the all-student SPS average (12 percentage points). Despite the overall drop in pass rates, SPS students with disabilities performed better than the state average for students with disabilities.


Math

Grade 4. Similar to the trends in English language arts pass rates, SPS students performed above the all-student state average over time. SPS students with IEPs met grade level standards at a higher rate than

73.0% 70.0% 72.0%

16.0%

29.0% 29.0%

49.0% 51.0% 51.0%

12.0%

14.0% 14.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

SPS Pass Rate - All Students

SPS Pass Rate - SWD

State Pass Rate - All Students


99.0% 97.0%

85.0%

89.0% 86.0%

52.0%

91.0% 91.0%

61.0%69.0% 66.0%

22.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

SPS Pass Rate - AllStudents

SPS Pass Rate - SWD

State Pass Rate - AllStudents




the state average. In 2017-18 the percentage of SPS students with IEPs passing the grade 4 math assessment was 1 percentage point behind the all-student state average. However, the achievement gap between SPS students with disabilities and SPS’ all-student average was substantial. In 2018-19, the percentage of SPS students with IEPs meeting or exceeding expectations was 41 percentage points lower than the all-student average.

Exhibit 69. Grade 4 Math, 2016-17 to 2018-19

Grade 8. Similar with the grade 8 English language arts assessment results, the percentage of SPS students with disabilities meeting or exceeding expectations was above the state average for students with IEPs, however substantially lower than the all-student SPS pass rate. For 2018-19, the percentage of students with disabilities passing the grade 8 English language arts assessment was 55 percentage points below the all SPS student pass rate.

Exhibit 70. Grade 8 Math, 2016-17 to 2018-19

74.0% 75.0% 73.0%

21.0%

47.0% 32.0%

49.0% 48.0% 49.0%

15.0% 16.0% 18.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19


SPS Pass Rate - SWD



76.0% 74.0% 73.0%

24.0% 20.0% 18.0%

48.0% 49.0% 47.0%

12.0% 12.0% 11.0%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19


SPS Pass Rate - SWD





Restraint and Seclusion

While the restraint and seclusion of K-12 public school students are rare nationwide, students with disabilities are disproportionately affected.76 As such, the analysis of restraint and seclusion practices in SPS are contained in this section about students with IEPs.

Every 2 years, the US Department of Education (ED) collects and publicly reports restraint and seclusion data from nearly all public school districts and schools as part of its Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC).77 The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) uses CRDC data in its enforcement of various federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and disability. Districts self-report and certify the data. For districts of any size, if data are missing, districts are required to provide an explanation and submit an action plan for reporting the required data in the next CRDC.

In June 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released an audit report on the inaccuracies in federal restraint and seclusion data. In short, the report found that for school year 2015-16 (the most recent data available), 70% of the more than 17,000 school districts in the U.S. reported zero incidents of restraint and zero incidents of seclusion. The analyses concluded that CRDC data do not accurately capture all incidents of restraint and seclusion in schools. Though the study focused on districts of student populations greater than 100,000, documents reviewed as part of the audit indicated that the misreporting of zeros occurred in smaller districts as well. The analysis raises questions about whether the confirmed instances of misreported zeros to the CRDC are indicative of a more pervasive pattern of underreporting of restraint and seclusion in U.S. public schools. The report provides several recommendations for ED. Districts nationwide should expect to see additional follow up and monitoring of restraint and seclusion data from ED in the near future.

Given this context, states and districts are taking a closer at existing regulations and beginning to more closely review their implementation at the local level.

Massachusetts Context

The state of Massachusetts has had regulations guiding the use of restraint and seclusion since 2001. These regulations, 603 CMR 46.00, were revised several years ago, with the updated regulation effective January 1, 2016. Several changes were made to the regulations as part of the revision. These include revised definitions of restraint, the addition of a definition of “time out,” new prohibitions on the use of prone restraint, and revised/additional reporting requirements after restraint has been used.

The purpose of the regulation is to ensure that:

Every student participating in a Massachusetts public education program is free from the use of physical restraint that is inconsistent with 603 CMR 46.00. Physical restraint shall be used only in emergency situations of last resort, after other lawful and less intrusive alternatives have failed or been deemed inappropriate, and with extreme caution. School personnel shall use physical restraint with two goals in mind:

(a) To administer a physical restraint only when needed to protect a student and/or a member of the school community from assault or imminent, serious, physical harm; and

76 GAO, K-12 Education: Federal Data and Resources on Restraint and Seclusion, GAO-19-418T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2019). 77 Except for Puerto Rico, districts in US territories are not required to participate in the CRDC. Similarly, districts are not required to provide information for tribal schools operated by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education. Schools operated by the Department of Defense Education Activity are also not required to participate, according to Education.



(b) To prevent or minimize any harm to the student as a result of the use of physical restraint.78

The regulation ensures that physical restraint is an emergency procedure of last resort and is prohibited except when: 1) a student’s behavior poses a threat of assault or imminent, serious, physical harm to self or others; 2) the student is not responsive to verbal directives or other lawful and less intrusive behavior interventions; or 3) such interventions are deemed to be inappropriate under the circumstances.

The revised regulations increased training/awareness requirements for all staff, added in-depth training content requirements for select staff, and augmented previously required reporting elements.79

District Practices

The School Committee adopted policy “603 CMR 46.00: PREVENTION OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINT AND REQUIREMENTS IF USED,” which aligns to the 2016 revised state regulation80 and has also developed a Staff Procedural Handbook for Student Restraint. It was last updated in January 2016. Both the policy and the procedural guidance have detailed requirements regarding training and staff awareness and reporting.

SPS developed a customized training for district schools based on the Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training. It was reported by some focus group participants that all principals, assistant principals, and psychologists are trained. However, others said they were unclear about who is trained in the school and that new IAs have not received training. School practices around data collection are reportedly inconsistent and staff are not clear about when reporting needs to occur. The majority of school-based focus group participants were not aware of the existence of the procedure manual.

Grade and School Level Transitions

As noted earlier, focus group participants expressed the desire for more communication between schools to support transition from Pre-K to Kindergarten. Teachers noted their desire for more time for student observations in the spring. The transition process from Pre-K to K varies by elementary school.

Several parent focus group participants shared concern that the transition from middle to high school can also be “tough.” One parent noted that it felt like the “safety net was pulled out during a year of huge adolescent development.” It was reported that there could be better scaffolding for students as early as late elementary school to prepare them to be more independent by high school. There is a step-up day for middle schoolers during the last days of schools to work on the transition for the next school year.

Post-Secondary Transition

The district does not have a dedicated Transition Coordinator or written guidance related to transition planning. Some parent focus group noted a perceived lack of proactivity from the district related to post-secondary transition. One focus group participant reported receiving significant misinformation related to her child’s post-secondary options.

78 http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr46.html?section=all 79 General Overview of Physical Restraint Requirements for Public Education Programs Including Revisions that Take Effect January 1, 2016. Power point presentation prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for use by Public Education Programs in Annual Staff Training (http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr46-updatedrequirements.pptx) 80 https://www.sharon.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA02202341/Centricity/Domain/44/JKAA-E-1---603-CMR-46-00-Prevention-of-Physical-Restraint-and-Requirments-if-Used.pdf



Staff Survey Responses Related to Transition

Exhibit 71. Planning effective services and activities for post-secondary transition begins for students at age 14 at my school(s).

Parent Survey Responses Related to Transition

Exhibit 72. Has the team developed individualized goals related to postsecondary education, employment, independent living, and community participation, as appropriate?

Exhibit 73. Did the IEP team discuss transition to adulthood during the IEP meeting, e.g., career interests?

Post-Secondary Outcomes Data

Indicator 14 establishes targets for the percentage of former SPS students with IEPs engaged in three education and/or work activities within one year of leaving high school.

The exhibit below shows District outcomes of former students compared to SPP targets. SPS has met and exceeded the state targets in all three categories in the most recent year the district was required to report the information (2015-16).

23%23%

20%17%

45%64%

31%

3%8%

13%33%

6%7%

7%

74%69%67%

50%48%

29%62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=228)


100%20%

59%55%

80%32%

39%8%7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Grades 3-6 (n=<10)Grades 7-8 (n=<10)


Yes No Don't Know

100%20%

59%55%

80%32%

39%8%7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Grades 3-6 (n=<10)Grades 7-8 (n=<10)


Yes No Don't Know



Exhibit 74. Indicator 14. Postsecondary Outcomes

Graduation and Drop-Out Rates

For the past four school years, students with IEPs at SPS graduated at a higher rate compared to all students with disabilities in the state. Graduation rates for students with IEPs were aligned with the state average for all students. In 2018, SPS’s on-time graduation rate for students with disabilities (88.9%) was slightly higher than the graduation rate for all students (87.8%).

Exhibit 75. Percent of SPS and State Students with and without an IEP Graduating from High School in 2014-18

SPS Graduation Rate for Students with IEPs and Comparable Districts

For 2018, SPS’ graduation rate (89.2%) was higher than the state average (72.4%). Of the districts compared, SPS’s graduation rate was the 4th highest. The following districts had graduation rates higher than SPS: Wellesley (89.7%), Weston (91%), and Westwood (96.7%).

83.2%

100.0%

66.7%

82.0%89.0%

47.0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2015-16 2015-16 2015-16

Enrolled in higher education orcompetitively employed within one

year of leaving high school

Enrolled in higher education or insome other secondary education

or training program; orcompetitively employed or in someother employment within one year

of leaving high school

Enrolled in higher education withinone year of leaving high school

SPS Performance State Target

96.8% 96.0% 96.5% 97.3%

86.4%

87.9%

82.6%

88.9%87.3%

87.5%

88.3%

87.8%

69.9%71.8% 72.8% 72.4%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2015 2016 2017 2018

SPS Graduation Rate - All Student

SPS Graduation Rate - SWD

State Graduation Rate - All Student

State Graduation Rate - SWD



Exhibit 76. SPS Graduation Rate for Students with IEPs and Comparable Districts, 2018

Dropout Rate of Students with IEPs Compared to State Averages

Since 2015, the drop-out rate for students at SPS was lower than the state average, including the rate for students with disabilities. When comparing drop-out rates for all students at SPS, students with disabilities dropped out at a slightly higher rate. Between 2015 and 2018, SPS’s dropout rate for students with disabilities varied between a low of 0% in 2017 and a high of 2.1% in 2016. Between 2015 and 2018, SPS’s drop-out rate for students with IEPs was below the state average for students with disabilities.

Exhibit 77. Dropout Rate of Students with IEPs Compared to Students without IEPs and State Averages, 2015-18

SPS Dropout Rate for Students with IEPs and Comparable Districts

89.2%

69.9%

88.6%83.3% 82.9%

89.7% 91.9%96.7%

72.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sharon PublicSchools

Brookline Canton Easton Franklin Wellesley Weston Westwood

State Average

1.9%1.9%

1.8% 1.9%

3.5%

3.1%

3.3% 3.4%

0.1%

1.1% 0.2%0.3%

0.8%

2.1%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

2015 2016 2017 2018

State Dropout Rate - Non Disabled State Dropout Rate - SWD

SPS Dropout Rate - Non Disabled SPS Dropout Rate - SWD



During 2018, SPS’s dropout rate for students with disabilities was 5.5 percentage points lower than the all state average. Of the comparable school districts, SPS’s graduation rate was the second highest. Three districts had dropout rates at zero percent and three districts had a dropout rate of less than 2% (but greater than 1%).

Exhibit 78. SPS Dropout Rate for Students with IEPs and Comparable Districts, 2018

Implementation of 504 Supports and Services Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, such as school districts. Generally, Section 504 applies to students with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. These terms are not limited to lists of specific impairments and major life activities, and eligibility is to be broadly construed:

x There is not an exhaustive list provided for physical or mental impairments “because of the difficulty of ensuring the comprehensiveness of such a list.”81

x The non-exhaustive list of major life activities includes items such as: caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, working, etc.

x The term “substantially limits” is not defined and is expected to be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted under the law.”82

Since 2008, Section 504 has applied the expanded coverage required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) amendment. Accordingly, when determining a student’s eligibility under Section 504, the process must exclude consideration of the ameliorating effects of any mitigating measures that

81 Protecting Students with Disabilities, Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities, Office of Civil Rights, January 19, 2012 at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html. 82 Office of Civil Rights, Questions and Answers on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 for Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-504faq-201109.html.

2.7%

1.1% 0.0% 0.0%

5.7%

1.3% 0.0%1.6%

8.2%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Sharon PublicSchools, MA

Brookline Canton Easton Franklin Wellesley Weston Westwood

State Average



the student is using to accommodate his/her physical impairment, e.g., medication, academic or behavior support.

Section 504 requires recipients to provide to students with disabilities appropriate educational services designed to meet the individual needs of such students to the same extent as the needs of students without disabilities are met. An appropriate education for a student with a disability under the Section 504 regulations could consist of education in regular classrooms, education in regular classes with supplementary services, and/or special education and related services.83

Characteristics of Students with 504 Plans During the 2018-19 school year, 4.8% of students at SPS had a 504 Plan.

Overall Number of Students with 504 Plans by Grade

The highest number of students with 504 Plans is in grade 11 (36), followed by grades 10 (33), 9 (33), and 12 (24). Of all students with a 504 Plan, 63.3% are enrolled in grades 9-12.

Exhibit 79. Number of Students with 504 Plans by Grade, 2017-18

Grade No. PK <10 K 0 1 <10 2 <10 3 <10 4 <10 5 <10 6 10 7 23 8 23 9 33 10 33 11 36 12+ 24 Total 199

Overall Incidence Rates by Gender

Male students accounted for 65.0% of students with a 504 Plan, compared to females who accounted for 35.0% of students with a 504 Plan.

83 Protecting Students with Disabilities, Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the Education of Children with Disabilities, Office of Civil Rights, January 19, 2012 at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html.



Exhibit 80. Percent of SPS Male vs. Female Students with 504s, 2018-19

Incidence Rates by Race/Ethnicity

The majority of students with 504 Plans were White (82.2%), followed by Two or More Races (5.0%) and Asian students (5.0%). Overall, 7.9% of all White students at SPS have a 504 Plan.

Exhibit 81. Percent of SPS Students with 504 Plans by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-1984

84 The following race/ethnicity groups had <10 students with a 504 plan: American Indian or Alaskan Native. The following race group did not have a student with a 504 plan: Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Female35.0%

Male65.0%

Black or African American3.9% Asian

5.0%

White82.2%

Hispanic3.9%

Two or More Races…



Exhibit 82. Percent of SPS Students with and without 504 Plans (Ages 6-21) by Race/Ethnicity, 2018-19

Focus group participants reported limited guidance exists related to Section 504 and Health Plans. Guidance counselors manage 504 Plans and nurses manage health plans. It was noted that messaging and expectations for both 504 and Health Plans has differed among recent Student Services Directors. Nurses expressed the need for more written procedures. They noted an inconsistency of standards across the district. They also expressed the desire for standard forms such as order forms, medical forms, exempt from screening, etc.

PowerSchool indicates which students have a 504 and has a notes section for accommodations. Teams meet annually to review 504 plans. Focus group participants shared that parent participation in these meetings is much more common at the elementary and middle levels than at the high school. Health Plans are initially recorded in SNAP Healthcare by school nurses. Hard copies of health plans are provided to all teachers. This information is now also captured in PowerSchool. However, teachers such as Band and Chorus do not have access to PowerSchool, so they may not be aware of a student’s allergy or other life-threatening health need.

Student Experience As the primary stakeholders of services provided by SPS, the study sought to examine the students’ perspectives regarding their educational experiences with IEPs. Middle and high school students provided feedback through focus groups conducted at the middle and high school. PCG also conducted student shadowing visits to all schools across SPS to observe the daily experiences of students with IEPs.

School Culture and Climate A reported strength of SPS is the accepting atmosphere among students. During PCG’s student shadowing, every school appeared to be a welcoming place for students and staff. In class and during

96.2% 99.1% 92.1%100.0% 96.0% 100.0% 95.4%

3.8% 0.9% 7.9% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0%4.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Black orAfrican

American

Asian White AmericanIndian orAlaskanNative

Hispanic NativeHawaiian orOther Pacific

Islander

Two or MoreRaces

Students Without a 504 Plan Students with a 504 Plan



transitions, students appeared to be positive towards one another. Bullying and other related activities did not emerge as a topic in focus groups. There was one comment related to bullying in the parent survey.

It was noted among focus group participants that the district does a good job of creating spaces for students to feel comfortable taking risks that will allow them to grow. One focus group participant shared her child with ASD was supported by the high school to participate in improv and a theater production, and that it was an invaluable experience for her child. Others parent focus group participants noted how teachers work to build community in the program settings, in particular the ASD program. There is also a newly launched unified sports program for basketball and track through Special Olympics that is reportedly working well.

Staff Survey Responses related to Social Inclusion

Exhibit 83. Students with disabilities at my school(s) have the opportunity to participate in school-sponsored activities such as assemblies, field trips, clubs, and sports.

Exhibit 84. Students with disabilities at my school(s) are treated with respect by school staff and students.

92%92%

79%92%

100%96%

93%

8%

4%1%

8%8%

21%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=216)


95%92%

67%100%100%

93%94%

2%8%

7%3%

3%

33%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=216)





Exhibit 85. My child has the opportunity to participate in school-sponsored activities such as assemblies, field trips, clubs, and sporting events.

Self-Advocacy Student focus group participants were well-informed about their IEPs and eager to share about their experiences. A handful of middle students had attended their IEP meetings; these students shared that they felt comfortable advocating for themselves and the services they needed. One student did express that being with several adults “felt a bit nerve-racking.” High school students said that they enjoyed participating IEP meetings and advocating for their needs. They remembered first attending IEP meetings in 8th grade and then were fully involved in IEP conversations once in high school. Students wished there was more of a gradual exposure to IEPs. For example, students suggested starting dialogue about their diagnoses and services as early as 5th grade. This way, when they see their complete IEP reports in high school, they will have some familiarity and will not feel so overwhelmed.

55% of all parent survey respondents and 59% of parents with high school aged students agreed that school staff actively encourage their child to participate in IEP meetings.

Academic Experience Student focus group participants reported that their teachers are supportive and attentive to their needs. At the middle school, there was an expressed desire for more differentiated instruction to address the learning styles of students with disabilities such as dyslexia. Most students shared their preference for in-class support rather than pull-out services. They mentioned that working in small groups or having one-on-one time in class is helpful, while leaving the classroom for extra support was not. They noted that peers often support each other in class, and they found that model effective. Students preferred being in small classes.

At the High School level, students expressed confidence in being able to approach teachers for extra support and ask for what they need to be successful. They felt that the High School environment is more flexible and accommodating to meet students’ different needs, allowing them to take ownership over their IEPs while still getting appropriate support – “doing things on your own, but not alone.”

Both middle and high school focus group participants found Academic Lab (AcLab) valuable. One middle school focus group participant did note that “kids sometimes tease about AcLab” but that “students with IEPs are the lucky ones because we get additional support during that block.” At the high school, most student focus group participants identified their AcLab teachers as adults they trust in the building. High school students wished there was additional teaching staff so they could have more one-on-one attention.

64%96%

88%76%78%

83%

4%6%

19%16%

10%

36%

6%5%5%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






VI. District Organization and Operations Strengths Opportunities for Improvement

x Inclusion is a key tenet of the district’s strategic plan.

x The Superintendent has deep expertise in Special Education.

x Out of District Placement and Contracted Services spending as percentage of special education expenditures has decreased over past decade.

x There is an overreliance on Instructional Assistants to provide in-class supports to students compared to other districts.

x SPS has generous staff ratios compared to other districts.

x There are inconsistent practices amongst schools. x There is no Special Education Operating

Procedures Manual.

This section provides information about SPS’s support for the teaching and learning of students with disabilities. The section is organized in the following manner: Strategic Initiatives; Organization, Collaboration, and Communication; Human Capital; METCO; Professional Development; Transportation; Finance; Data and Technology Use; and Written Policies and Guidance.

Strategic Initiatives SPS is currently led by a Superintendent, under the direction of seven elected School Committee members. School Committee members serve overlapping three-year terms and hold meetings twice a month.

Last year the district initiated a strategic planning process, resulting in the development a 2018-21 District Plan. This plan encapsulates the district’s Strategic Objectives and is supplemented by the annual Action Plan, which provides details of each expected action step by year. 85 The Strategic Objectives within the District Plan are focused in the following areas:

1) Social-Emotional Learning - promote student success by ensuring a healthy school environment that supports that social and emotional well-being and the mental health of each learner

2) Relationships/Culture - foster an equitable and inclusive learning community that ensures respectful and culturally competent relationships

3) Learning Environments – provide safe, secure, accessible environments conducive for learning and adaptive to changing teaching practices that meet the needs of each learner

4) Curriculum/Professional Development - implement a consistent curriculum with responsive instruction practices that meet the needs of each learner

Each Strategic Objective has various initiatives underway within it. Below is a summary of these initiatives and the status of their implementation.

Social-Emotional Learning

Initiatives for SY 2019-2020

x Early Detection of Deficits: Develop and use core social emotional skills lists for early detection of skills deficits, continuing to assess and monitor progress

85 https://www.sharon.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA02202341/Centricity/Domain/17/District%20Plan%202018-2021.pdf



x Well-being and Mental Health - Partner with families and the community to support students’ well-being and mental health, providing education and information about both in school and out- of-school resources

Completed Initiatives for SY 2018-2019

x Professional Development - Provide professional development in the 5 areas of SEL competencies and the use of skills-based list and tiered supports

x Students’ Physical Health - Promote students’ physical health by providing healthier food selections and appropriate recess and exercise


x Social/Emotional Skills - With families and the community, develop tiered systems of support and a response process that supports students’ social and emotional skills

x Tiered Systems of Support - Provide students with instruction based on the best practices of SEL; a strong focus on culture, integrated curriculum approaches, direct instruction, and community service learning, to enhance their SEL skill sets and protect against current and future mental health concerns

Relationships/Culture


x Diverse Staff - Recruit and retain diverse staff x Community Feedback - Solicit student and family feedback regarding their connectedness to

and experience with Sharon Public Schools and develop students’ and families’ ability to self-advocate

x Ongoing Opportunities - Partner with community to enhance understanding of cultural competency


x Equitable Learning Environments - Establish and evaluate district systems to ensure equitable and inclusive learning environments


x Adult Connections - Provide professional development and training to build capacity in SPS staff and community stakeholders in cultural competency and core values

x Inclusivity - Evaluate existing curriculum and research new curriculum and resources in all content areas to ensure cultural diversity and non-stereotypical representation of all student groups

Learning Environments


x MSBA Process - Construct or substantially renovate Sharon High School, ensuring the facility supports students’ preparedness for college and/or career

x Community Partnerships - Identify support staff and community partnerships to ensure safe, secure, and healthy learning environments



Significant Progress Initiatives for SY 2018-2019

x Enhanced Safety Protocols - Establish a continuous facilities development and evaluation schedule based on frequent data points: flexible, responsive learning spaces; code compliant facilities; capital planning and budget forecasting; security; highly effective technology tools

x Sandy Hook Promise- Explore creative funding mechanisms to support ideal learning environments

Curriculum/Professional Development


x English Learners - Gather and utilize specific subgroup data to identify student need, creating data teams at every grade level or subject area and developing a district wide system for looking at student data


x Professional Development Plan - Develop a district professional development plan that improves best practice for student-centered, culturally responsive learning

x Under-represented Honors Students - Create a multi-tiered system of support that provides multiple ways for students to receive academic and social/emotional supports and interventions


x K-5 Academic Growth - Align curriculum vertically and horizontally x Achievement Gaps - Promote inclusive practices based on shared ownership for learning and

high expectations for all x Learning Opportunities - Explore and develop project-based learning opportunities for students

Organization and Human Capital The district’s organizational structure and personnel in specific roles have evolved over the past few years under the leadership of the Superintendent. Overall these changes are perceived positively and have allowed the central office to begin to shift focus to better support school-based staff and provide proactive coaching.

Prior to the 2019-20 school year, there were two assistant superintendents – one overseeing data and accountability and another overseeing curriculum and instruction. These positions are now merged under one position. Focus group participants noted that this change has been helpful, with better alignment now between instructional initiatives and new attention as to on how to use data to support schools and programs.

Retention and Recruitment

With regards to school-based staff retention, there has been little turnover of special education teachers in recent years and no reported challenges with recruiting IAs. Turnover of IAs, however, is high. Human Resources believes there is often misalignment between the IA’s skillsets and expectations of the role and the actual position duties. Finding qualified special education substitute teachers is also a concern. It was noted that neighboring school districts pay their substitutes more so attracting available substitutes can be difficult. Finding CPI trained substitutes was identified a pressing need as well.

The current school-based hiring process is driven at the school level. The Superintendent approves all hires. The Human Resources Department currently does not have direct input in school-based hiring



aside from posting the position. The Human Resources Department is actively working to establish hiring criteria to ensure equitable hiring decisions occur at the school level and is developing a hiring matrix for schools to employ.

Special Education Support to Schools

SPS has a wide range of personnel to support students with disabilities in schools. The following captures the main responsibilities and roles of these personnel.

Special Education Liaison

Special Education Liaisons are building based special education teachers who both teach students with disabilities and manage students’ IEP paperwork. In most cases, Liaisons provide direct services to students on their caseloads; however, in some cases they may manage a student’s IEP process without providing services to him or her. Contractually Liaisons can have a caseload of between 25-30 students, though typical caseload sizes average about 15 students. Coordinators redistribute cases between Liaisons when the need arises. Focus group participants reported the belief, though, that “the current staff to student ratio (for liaisons) is not working” and that caseloads do not appear to equitable between buildings and across buildings. They also shared that the entrance and exit criteria for counseling is a gray area which means caseload responsibilities go up and down.

Evaluation Team Lead (ETL)

There is an Evaluation Team Lead (ETL) in every building. At the elementary schools, the Assistant Principals assumes this role among other job duties. The high school has a Special Education Administrator. At the middle school, there is an ETL Coordinator. The MS coordinator has similar duties to the administrators, including evaluation of special education teachers.

School Nurses

There are eight nurses that provide direct service to students. There is one Nurse Lead, two float nurses and 1 full-time nurse per building. Nursing Services currently is a part of the Department of Student Services, though they work with all students. They are supervised by a School Nurse Lead.

Nurses reported their busiest time with students is during advisory and lunch, given the number of students requiring GI tube, diabetes regulation, etc.). Their activities include: processing new paperwork for medicines/epi-pens; informing teachers of student needs; updating doctor’s orders; collecting forms and other correspondence; and coordinating medicine orders. Nurses will log for school-based Medicaid for the first time this year.

Among other duties, the School Nurse Lead also serves as the liaison to Department of Public Health. The School Nurse Lead also works closely with the Town of Sharon and the Substance Abuse Coalition to offer programming. There is a desire for the district to offer more community health programming. Identified areas of need included topics such as respectful dating and vaping.

School Psychologists

The duties of the school psychologist are wide ranging, and they “wear many hats.” Psychologists primarily see students who have specific counseling needs as identified on their IEP. They frequently run lunch groups for students with disabilities for social skills development and coordinate mental health providers outside of school as well. Additionally, they are also a core part of the evaluation and reevaluation teams for students in SPS schools and those in out of district placements. At some schools, psychologists manage the SST process, while in other schools they are participating team members.

Psychologists also see students without IEPs, especially if these students are in crisis. Some shared that students sometimes “just show up at the door,” and they provide counseling for them. Psychologists who



participated in focus groups shared that while the position is demanding between conducting testing and providing direct support to students. They enjoy knowing and supporting students (not just acting as diagnosticians).

Given these demands, psychologists who participated in focus groups shared that they are not able to consistently consult with teachers.

Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs)

Focus group participants shared the following feedback about the responsibilities of speech language pathologists and how they provide services to students.

A large part of their work is providing a “social language” to students with disabilities–helping students understand how to read the room, fit in, make friends, etc. They also help staff understand how to support struggling students, consult with individual teachers on specific student needs, support Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and other hi-tech and low-tech needs for students.

Focus group participants shared that there are significant workload/caseload challenges for these providers and that seeing all students on their caseloads and who require evaluation or reevaluation is challenging. There is no “wiggle room” in schedules so making up is difficult to do. Most services are delivered as pull out because of time and schedules. SLPs often provide services during AcLab. Additionally, SLPs have initiated “speech contract services” for students receiving supports through RTI. On average speech therapy services are provided for a 6-8 week period after the parents agrees. Anecdotally, it was reported that students proactively receiving speech as an intervention (mostly for articulation) rarely require an IEP. Schools do not manage speech contract services consistently or follow the same process for providing them. Students receiving these services are not included in caseload counts.

Focus group participants also shared a concern around the need for updated testing protocols and clear guidance on whether testing can/should be done on a computer. While it was reported that SLPs have not been able to purchase revised protocols for the last several years, there is now a districtwide effort underway to order new assessment kits.

Special Education and Related Services Staffing Ratios and Allocations

Information used to compare SPS staff ratios to other school districts was provided through several surveys conducted by the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, and was supplemented by data from reviews conducted independently, or with the Council of Great City Schools and PCG over the past five years.86 Data from 70 other school districts provide a general understanding of districts’ staffing levels in the following areas: special educators, instructional assistants, speech/language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational therapists, and physical therapists. Appendix B. SPS Staffing Ratios Compared to Other Districts contains detailed information for each surveyed school district. The data do not give precise district comparisons, and the results need to be used with caution. At times, district data are not uniform (e.g., including or excluding contractual personnel, varying methods for collecting and reporting student counts) and are impacted by varying levels of private and public placements, where personnel outside a district provide special education/related services to a group of district students. However, these data are the best available and are useful to better understand staffing ratios for school districts. SPS provided detailed staff ratios by school for special educators, speech/language pathologists, psychologists, counselors, occupational therapists, and physical therapists. When informative, relevant information is referenced below.

86 Sue Gamm, Esq. compiled and continues to maintain this list. She grants PCG permission to use the data in reports.



The exhibit below indicates where SPS ranked in the following position ratios: IEP incidence rate, 70 other school districts provide a general understanding of districts’ staffing levels in the following areas: special educators, instructional assistants, speech/language pathologists, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational therapists, and physical therapists. Further analysis of specific position numbers and student to staff ratios follow.

Exhibit 86. Comparable District Staffing Ratios by Position

Special Education Teachers and Instructional Assistants

This section provides information about SPS special education teacher and instructional assistant ratios compared to other school districts, and feedback about their availability and use. Staffing ratios and other data regarding related-services personnel are summarized below.

Exhibit 87. Average Number Students with IEPs for Each Special Educator and Paraprofessionals/Instructional Assistants87

Areas of Comparison Special Educators Paraprofessionals

Number of SPS Staff FTE 46 101

SPS Student w/IEP-to-Staff Ratio

11.7:1 5.3:1

All District Average Ratios 14.6:1 15.3:1

SPS Ranking Among Districts 21st out of 71 reporting districts 2nd out of 71 reporting districts

As reported in Appendix B. SPS Staffing Ratios Compared to Other Districts, SPS had an overall average of 11.7 students with IEPs (including those with speech/language needs only) for each special educator. This average is lower than the 14.6-student average of all districts in the survey. SPS had the 21st highest

87 As noted, information used to compare SPS staff ratios to other school districts was provided through a survey conducted by the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, which was supplemented by data from reviews conducted independently, or with the Council of Great City Schools and Public Consulting Group, Inc. Districts included in Appendix B. SPS Staffing Ratios Compared to Other Districts, collect and report data using different methods and different points of time, therefore student headcounts and staffing totals may vary.

43

21

29

3

33

8

21

3010203040506070

%IE

Ps

Spec

ial E

duca

tors

Para

prof

essi

onal

Spee

ch/L

angu

age

Path

olog

ists

Psyc

holo

gist

s

Soci

al W

orke

rs

Nur

ses

Occ

upat

iona

lTh

erap

ists

Phys

ical

The

rapi

sts

Ran

k



state ratio among the 71 reporting school districts. SPS had an overall average of 5.3 students with IEPs for each paraprofessional, a smaller ratio than the all-district average of 15.3 students, making SPS 2nd of the 71 reporting districts.

Related Service Providers

This section provides information about SPS related service provider staffing ratios compared to other school districts, and feedback about their availability and use. Staffing ratios and other data regarding related-services personnel are summarized below.

Exhibit 88. Average Number Students with IEPs for Each Related Service Provider8889

Areas of Comparison

Psychologists Speech/ Language

Social Workers

OTs PTs

Number of SPS Staff FTE

9.0 9.0 2 2.6 2.8

SPS Student w/IEP-to-Staff Ratio

60:1 60:1 270.0:1 207.7:1 192.9:1

All District Average Ratios

167.8:1 117.4:1 333.2:1 406.6:1 1,015.3:1

SPS Ranking Among Districts

3rd out of 65 reporting districts

9th out of 70 reporting districts

33rd out of 48 reporting

districts

21st out of 68 reporting districts

3rd out of 68 reporting districts

x Psychologists. There is one psychologist for an average of 60 students with IEPs compared to the surveyed district average of 167.8 students, ranking SPS as 3rd of the 65 reporting districts.

x Speech/Language Pathologist. There is one speech/language pathologist (SLP) for an average of 60 students with IEPs compared to the surveyed district average of 117.4 students, ranking SPS as 9th of the 70 reporting districts.

x Social Workers. There is one social worker for an average of 270.0 students with IEPs compared to the surveyed district average of 333.2 students with IEPs, ranking SPS as 33rd of the 48 reporting districts.

x Occupational Therapists (OT). There is one OT for an average of 207.7 students, compared to the surveyed district average of 406.6 students, ranking SPS as 21st of the 68 reporting districts.

x Physical Therapists. There is one physical therapist for an average of 192.9 students, compared to the surveyed district average of 1,015.3 students, ranking SPS as 3rd of the 68 reporting districts.

88 As noted, information used to compare SPS staff ratios to other school districts was provided through a survey conducted by the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, which was supplemented by data from reviews conducted independently, or with the Council of Great City Schools and Public Consulting Group, Inc. 89 SPS staffing ratio calculations based on data provided by SPS to PCG.



METCO Program The METCO Program is a voluntary desegregation program created following the Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Act of 1965. Funded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, METCO is a voluntary program intended to expand educational opportunities, increase diversity, and reduce racial isolation, by permitting students in certain cities to attend public schools in other communities that have agreed to participate. Currently, there are about 3,300 students participating in 38 school districts in metropolitan Boston and at four school districts outside Springfield. 90 SPS has participated in METCO since 1968 and averages about 65-67 students enrolled annually. The METCO program funding that SPS receives provide direct support to enrolled students.

In prior years, school districts selected students for attendance. Students applied and were assigned a town; they were not able to choose a specific district. SPS is one of the few districts that accepts older (i.e., high school age) students, enrolling applicants from grades 1-11. In most districts, including Sharon, the METCO program only accepted students with IEPS whose profiles fit within existing special education programs. If specific special education services were not offered by the district, the district has traditionally not accepted them. The district funds special education services for all SPS students, including those enrolled through METCO.

For the 2020-21 school year, Massachusetts districts participated in METCO are required to move to a lottery system. This change will have a significant impact on the profile of students attending SPS through METCO and in other METCO participating districts. Districts can no longer accept only students with IEPs that they think they can serve. The lottery will determine which students are assigned to which participating districts. Those involved in the METCO program have expressed concerns around how the face of the METCO program will change with the introduction of the lottery. These changes may perpetuate the belief that METCO is a program for black students with disabilities.

The current METCO Program Director came to SPS in 2017 and is an employee and administrator. The Program Director reports to the Assistant Superintendent. For the 2019-20 school year, SPS hired a contracted METCO Liaison. This position is new and designed to be a resource primarily at the secondary schools. Duties are centered on supporting the success of METCO students and facilitating communication with families. The Liaison’s duties include checking grades, reviewing progress reports for students with disabilities, making calls to and having check ins with parents, sitting in on team meetings, attending IEP meetings with the METCO Program Director, etc. Early reports indicate that the Liaison position is already greatly valued by school teams and parents.

Professional Development Quality teaching in all classrooms and skilled leadership in all schools will not occur by accident. It requires the design and implementation of the most powerful forms of professional development. High quality professional development must be sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused (not one-day or short-term workshops) to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and teacher’s performance. Research reports that elementary school teachers who received substantial professional development—an average of 49 hours—boosted their students’ achievement by about 21 percentage points.91 Recent studies have concluded that effective professional development adheres to the following principles:

90 http://www.doe.mass.edu/metco/ 91 Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 033. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory, October 2007. Findings based on nine studies that meet What Works Clearinghouse standards.



x The duration of professional development must be significant and ongoing to allow time for teachers to learn a new strategy and grapple with the implementation problem.

x There must be support for a teacher during the implementation stage that addresses the specific challenges of changing classroom practice.

x Teachers’ initial exposure to a concept should not be passive, but rather should engage teachers through varied approaches so they can participate actively in making sense of a new practice.

x Modeling has been found to be a highly effective way to introduce a new concept and help teachers understand a new practice.

x The content presented to teachers shouldn’t be generic, but instead grounded in the teacher’s discipline (for middle school and high school teachers) or grade-level (for elementary school teachers).92

As SPS develops a longer term and universal professional learning plan geared toward improving student outcomes, continued implementation of these principles will be paramount. Additionally, it will be critical for the Office of Student Services to have the authority to require staff to attend relevant PD.

District Practices As part of the Curriculum and Professional Development Objectives under the District Plan, SPS completed a Professional Development Plan during the 2018-19 school year. Given the newness of the plan, focus group participants did not express a knowledge or awareness of it.

In addition to district-sponsored training, SPS provides a $350 stipend to teachers to attend a professional development session of their choosing outside the district. It was reported that this is driven by teacher choice, and there is no accountability regarding what teachers chose or how they put what they learned into practice in the classroom. Trainings that teachers select are not connected to their evaluations or areas of growth. School-based focus group participants noted that they have not had a wide selection of district-sponsored training options in the past few years and that often school administrators miss opportunities to attend offerings because they are responding to emergencies in their buildings. All schools have meetings once per month that include a half day of professional development.

Previous professional development sessions/topics offered in the past included a 2-day IEP bootcamp and the Skillful Teacher course. The intent of IEP bootcamp was to teach special educators how to develop “spiraled,” or scaffolded, IEP goals could build from elementary to high school. Teachers cited the fact that inconsistent leadership in special education has caused confusion around what is required and what is best practice and that there has been inconsistent follow up on the offered trainings. A few commented on how they liked the introduction to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) motivational session offered at the beginning of the 2019-20 school year and would like more in depth training on the topic.

The request for more professional development carried across every focus group PCG conducted. Teachers, principals, related service providers, and other staff all expressed a strong desire for more thoughtful, relevant professional development.

Special education teachers requested the following trainings:

x Differentiating instruction x Co-teaching x Progress monitoring x Research-based intervention/instruction x Understanding the differences between 504 plans, healthcare plans, and IEPs

92 Id.



x eSped x Classroom management x Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), including low- and high-tech options for

students

Many general education teachers echoed the need for more training on these topics too.

Another common theme across school-based focus group participants was the request to have more collaborative planning time. Both special education and general education teachers expressed a strong desire to have more opportunity to jointly plan lessons. Special education teachers across buildings requested time to meet together to help standardize teaching practices and learn from each other. Psychologists said that they highly valued the time they used to meet routinely to share cases, a practice that provided beneficial professional development for them. This used to be an organized practice across the district but over the past few years no longer exists.

Many school-based focus group participants noted the need for more training for specific staff, such as Instructional Aides (IAs), school nurses, and related service providers. In the past, IAs were used as babysitters for the afterschool program and, as a result, not able to attend professional development sessions. Recent changes to the union contract, however, changed this practice. IAs are now able to participate in the school-based monthly half day PD. They will be assigned to specific trainings. In recent years, school nurses have not had specific trainings, nor have they been able to present school or community health information to school-based staff. Related service providers have been invited to participate in school-based and district trainings, yet the topics covered are generally not relevant to their specialty.

The Office of Student Services is in the process of developing a professional development plan based on a needs-assessment conducted as a part of the Director of Student Services’ entry plan. The Office has worked in job alike groups to discuss PD for the 2020-21 school year and is in the process of evaluating testing practices so that consistency in report writing can be developed.

Staff Survey Responses

SPS staff were asked a series of survey questions about their professional development experiences and needs. The following is a summary of responses.

Overall, 60% across all roles agree that SPS’s professional learning offerings have enabled them to better support their teaching for students with IEPs. General education teachers, other school-based staff, and related service providers had the lowest levels of agreement (37%, 27%, and 8%, respectively).



Exhibit 89. Professional learning offerings I have attended at SPS enable me to better support teaching/learning of students with IEPs.

The survey also asked a series of questions about specific roles and the need for additional professional development to support teaching and learning for students with disabilities. Overall, the majority of staff (75%) indicated that general educators at their school need more professional development to provide instruction aligned to the SPS curriculum. The highest levels of agreement were among special education teachers (88%), student support services staff (78%), and general education teachers (72%) while fewer related service providers agreed (67%).

Exhibit 90. General education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for providing students with disabilities with instruction aligned with the curriculum.

Staff were asked a similar question with regards to professional development needs among special educators. The highest rates of agreement were from special education teachers (81%) and related service providers (75%). In comparison, 38% of general education teachers agreed.

37%

44%

27%

8%

46%

52%

60%

55%

40%

47%

92%

51%

37%

21%

8%

16%

27%

0%

3%

11%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=228)


72%

68%

73%

67%

88%

78%

75%

25%

12%

0%

8%

6%

4%

15%

3%

20%

27%

25%

6%

19%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=218)




Exhibit 91. Special education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for providing students with disabilities with instruction aligned with the curriculum.

There was general agreement from the majority of staff that both general educators and special educators need more professional development to address the social/emotional needs of students with disabilities in their classes.

Exhibit 92. General education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for addressing the social/emotional needs of students with disabilities in their classes.

38%52%53%

75%81%

63%52%

18%24%20%

17%19%

7%18%

44%24%

27%8%

30%30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=216)


71%76%

53%92%

84%89%

76%

26%12%

7%0%

13%0%

16%

3%12%

40%8%

3%11%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




All Roles (n=216)




Exhibit 93. Special education teachers need more professional learning opportunities on strategies for addressing the social/emotional needs of students with disabilities in their classes.

Staff were also asked about the professional learning needs of instructional assistants, specifically to support students with disabilities in general education classes. The majority of staff in all roles (75%) agreed, including 91% of special education teachers.

Exhibit 94. Instructional Assistants need more professional learning opportunities on supporting students in general education classes.

44%

60%

53%

92%

83%

81%

60%

12%

28%

13%

0%

17%

7%

14%

44%

12%

33%

8%

0%

11%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=219)


68%

80%

60%

75%

91%

78%

74%

6%

16%

7%

9%

4%

7%

27%

4%

33%

25%

19%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=218)




Exhibit 95. Instructional Assistants need more professional learning opportunities on supporting students in special education classes.

Overall, staff in all roles indicated that more professional development among general educators, special educators, and instructional assistants is needed to support students with disabilities.

Transportation Approximately 100-120 students with IEPs receive specialized transportation from SPS. Roughly 80 of these students receive in-town transportation. Transportation needs are determined by a student’s IEP team.

The district owns 35 vans, with about 30 running per day for students who require specialized transportation. Van drivers are employed by the district and must maintain a 7D license. There is an 8-hour state requirement of training to renew this 7D license. SPS also offers additional training such as behavior management and Epi-Pen administration.

SPS contracts with Conley Transportation for buses. All bus drivers work for Conley and receive 8 hours of mandatory training through the company. This training mostly focuses on safe driving but does include bus management and behavior. The district also facilitates an annual meeting about SPS’s expectations. All bus and van drivers have had bullying prevention training. Parent focus group participants shared concerns about safety, particularly with vans. In the event of an accident or a student crisis, parents expressed worry about the driver’s ability to safely manage students’ needs alone, as there is only one driver, and typically no aide, on the van.

Finance SPS schools are believed to be well-resourced with staffing. The majority (87%) of the budget is dedicated to salaries. The biggest cost drivers include out of district tuition, transportation, and staff. IAs are a substantial part of the budget that can have great variability year to year. For example, this year five new IAs were requested that were unplanned and unbudgeted. If a student needs the support staff, the district works the ensure it is provided. The Director of Student Services must approve all special education personnel requests. Focus group participants also shared numerous examples of contractors used to support home-based needs as well as other unique needs for students.

When planning for the 2019-20 school year, SPS developed a zero-based budget process. In past years, the budget was rolled from one year to the next, so this was a significant operational change for SPS staff. The goal of changing the budgeting process was to stimulate dialogue about how resources are

55%

84%

53%

92%

79%

73%

66%

2%

16%

7%

21%

8%

7%

43%

40%

8%

19%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%







All Roles (n=217)




allocated and decisions are made. The budget process will continue to be improved and refined for the 2020-21 budget cycle to include more student and staff data to drive decisions.

District Special Education Expenditures The exhibit below reflects the growth in special education expenditures and special education enrollment from 2010-11 to 2018-19. During these school years, special education expenditures increased 23.5%.

Exhibit 96. Nine-Year Comparison of Total SPS Special Education Cost and Total Special Education Enrollment

The rate of total Out of District Placement and Contracted Services spending percentage of special education expenditures decreased since 2010-11 (42.47%). The amount spent on tuition and contracted services was lowest in 2014-15 ($1,600,296), however climbed steadily since. The percentage of special education expenditures for tuition and contracted services for 2018-19 was 26.57% ($3,147,978).

519

468

582

493 511 498

560 559 545

$-

$2,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$8,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$12,000,000.00

$14,000,000.00

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

SwD Enrollment Special Education Costs



Exhibit 97. SPS Tuition and Contracted Services Spending as a Percentage of Special Education Expenditures, 2010-11 to 2018-19

In 2018-19, SPS’s special education funding accounted for 27.0% of overall expenditures. Between 2014-15 and 2018-19, special education expenditures increased from 22.3% to 27.0%.

Exhibit 98. SPS Special Education Spending as a Percentage of Total Budget, 2010-11 to 2018-19

Medicaid Reimbursement

SPS participates in school-based Medicaid through a 3rd party vendor. The Town of Sharon holds the contract.

Sharon Education Foundation

The Sharon Education Foundation (SEF) is an independent nonprofit organization run by parent volunteers. Through private fundraising, SEF supports public education in Sharon by funding programs

42.47%41.89%

28.28%25.97%

18.57%22.22%

25.31%22.14%

26.57%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

SPED Tuition and Contracted Services

27.1% 27.4%

24.1%22.8% 22.3%

24.3%25.7% 25.2%

27.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19



that deliver innovation into the classroom and town. Teachers can apply for grant for training to improve classroom instruction. One focus group participant mentioned, for example, that she was approved for two multi-cultural books and cushiony chairs. Resources are also used to help support speakers and teacher training.

Data and Technology Use The district has two primary data systems that capture student data specific to special education, eSped and Power School. eSped is the system of record for all special education data. It also houses Section 504 data. Power School is the district’s Student Information System. There is nightly integration between eSped and Power School. Power School has an icon that indicates if a student has a 504 Plan. Focus group participants said that they would find it helpful to have an icon in Power School to indicate that a student has an IEP. The district is currently exploring this option with Power School.

At the beginning of each school year, liaisons provide general education teachers with an electronic summary (only accommodations) of students’ IEPs and recommend the teachers both print and save this information. Teacher sign-off of receipt is required.

Nurses do not have access to e-Sped, which makes it harder for them to obtain IEPs and 504 Plans and check records. They report only infrequently getting final copies of these documents. There is also inconsistency between schools as to how staff provide copies of IEPs and 504 Plans to nurses, and year to year, what records nurses get, and how they get them, differs. The Department of Public Health requires reporting on students with IEPs. Nurses use Snap Healthcare to manage student health data.

There is currently no data system for MTSS. District administrators expressed the desire for a system that would track students who are receiving Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports, their learning needs, and intervention progress.

Written Policies and Guidance SPS does not have a written Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM) for special education policies and procedures in the district. Written guidance that does exist is limited and in need of updating. Focus group participants said that when they have questions, they first go to colleagues and then to coordinators for assistance. No focus group participant referenced using written materials as a resource.



VII. Parent and Family Engagement Strengths Opportunities for Improvement

x Parents are engaged and invested. x There is a highly active Special

Education Parent Advisory Council (SSEPAC).

x Most parents report feeling they are valued members of the IEP team.

x There is a perceived inequity of services for students whose parents are not able to advocate effectively or provide additional resources.

x Parents cited need for better home/school communication and between staff.

Introduction Parents are a child’s first teacher and are important partners as their children progress through school. Their vital role is acknowledged in IDEA which requires parental input in writing IEP goals, the provision of related services, and placements. IDEA also requires collaboration with parents and students with disabilities to design and implement special education services. As part of this review, several research questions specifically examine the parent’s role and satisfaction with special education processes and service delivery within SPS. The review sought to examine two topics related to parent and family engagement:

x Information and Communication: The extent to which parents are provided with useful information and communication throughout the process, have the ability to find consistent and reliable information about each process, and the extent to which the resources (literature, documentation, etc.) support the process;

x Parent Voice: The extent to which stakeholders feel that their input is solicited, heard, and included, what resources are used to facilitate communication with parents of students with disabilities, and how specific IEPs and related processes support the student.

This study sought to gauge parent perceptions of their level of engagement with the process of developing plans and the communication and feedback they receive from their child’s school about their child’s progress. The data presented below are drawn from focus groups and surveys conducted with parents across SPS.

Information and Communication The following section explores the extent to which parents receive information from the district both about special education programming and their children.

Sharon Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SSEPAC)

SPS is fortunate to have an active core of parents of students receiving special education services. These parents are not only engaged with the education of their individual student but are also dedicating significant time to grow the SSEPAC. Participants in parent focus groups described how isolating the experience of having a child with a disability can be and credit SSEPAC with providing critical support to them.

According to their brochure, SSEPAC is

a group of parents and caregivers who work together to provide information and support to families of children receiving special education services…They also advocate for children in the general education setting who may be in need of support to access the curriculum. Monthly meetings and workshops are held to discuss issues related to special education. The Board



meets regularly with SPS administrators to advocate for student’s educational, health, and emotional needs.

SSEPAC’s mission is to promote understanding, respect, acceptance, and inclusion of children with special needs and disabilities within our school system and community. The organization has been in a period of growth in recent years, rebuilding the organization, developing a strategic plan, raising the awareness of the SPS community with supporting students with disabilities, and building its parent membership. SSEPAC leadership shared that many parents of students with disabilities do not know that the organization exists. Parents who are looking for support tend seek to them out, but this is not the norm. In addition to maintaining its Facebook presence, SSEPAC is in the process of rebuilding its website in order to raise its profile and provide resources for parents.

SSEPAC is working to align its strategic plan and initiatives to the SPS Plan and to build a positive and productive relationship with district leadership. In its strategic plan, SSEPAC describes the current state, future state, challenges, and next steps. For the 2019-20 school year, the organization is aiming to increase membership and attendance, reach out to families at the time of IEP/504 assignment or if they are new to the school system, and cultivate a strong relationship with the School Committee.

SSEPAC meets once a month, generally at the same time and place. This year the group has been alternating between Mondays and Wednesdays and have added in coffee meeting times during the day (once a month this year). Attendance reportedly ebbs and flows and is higher when there are speakers scheduled. Speakers have been invited to address a wide range of topics, including anxiety, mental wellness, transition, mindfulness, and procedural basic rights. Though meetings are scheduled for one hour, the meetings go as long as needed to ensure parents have the opportunity to share.

Parent focus group participants shared that attending SSEPAC meetings is a good way to connect with other parents and that it is comforting to bond with them. Many said that they receive more information about special education law and parental rights from other parents, not from the district. In addition to SSEPAC parent meetings, the Department of Mental Health also manages a parent support group and has done so for many years. Meetings occur on Monday nights and are located at the Canton Public Library.


Less than a quarter (19%) of parents reported that they attended a parent training or information session offered by the district. Of those who attended a session, parents believed the sessions were helpful.

Exhibit 99. In the past year, have you attended parent training or information sessions offered by SPS?

8%21%

39%18%19%

91%85%

75%57%

77%75%

9%8%

4%4%5%5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Yes No Don't Know



Exhibit 100. If yes, was the parent training you attended helpful?

Parent Voice Focus groups participants across varied roles noted how invested parents are in IEP meetings. Parents want to be included treated as equal partners. Overall parent participation is high, and “IEP meeting tables are full.” Despite this high level of participation, parents cited several examples of how at times they feel disenfranchised, particularly when they hear comments such as, “well, at least he’s not the worst behaved kid in the school.” Several stated that these comments minimize their feelings and experience.

There is also a general feeling among parents that it is complicated to navigate the school system and special education law, resulting in an inequity of services for students whose parents are not able to advocate effectively or bring additional resources, such as advocates or lawyers, to support them. Some noted that parents must “have economic privilege” to get the resources they need for their children and that parents whose primary language is not English struggle.


Among parents of children with IEPs, a large majority indicated on the survey that they feel engaged with the IEP process: 83% agree that they are a respected partner in the development of their child’s IEP.

Exhibit 101. In planning my child’s most recent IEP, I felt I was a valued member of the IEP team, and my opinion was respected.

Parents indicated that school staff both communicate effectively about their child’s IEP (76% agree) and respond to their concerns in a reasonable period of time (77% agree). There were variations in responses by level of schooling, with more parents citing effective communication from the school in the upper grades and the rate of staff responsiveness higher in the lower grades.

0%100%

73%88%

57%75%

13%43%

21%

9%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pre-Kindergarten (n=0)Grades K-2 (n=n<10)

Grades 3-6 (n=11)Grades 7-8 (n=<10)

Grades 9-12+ (n=<10)All Grades (n=28)

Yes No Don't Know

91%100%

78%82%

77%83%

9%

20%14%

18%14%

2%5%5%3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A



Exhibit 102. Teachers/school staff communicate effectively with me.

Exhibit 103. School staff respond to my concerns in a reasonable period of time.

Parents also felt comfortable asking questions and expressing concerns at IEP meetings (90% agree) and report that they understood what is discussed (92% agree).

Exhibit 104. I feel comfortable asking questions and expressing concerns at IEP meetings.

Exhibit 105. I understand what is discussed at IEP meetings.

73%70%

73%86%

79%76%

27%30%25%

14%18%

23%

2%

3%1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A

100%83%

69%82%

77%77%

9%22%

18%15%16%

9%10%

8%7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A

82%100%

84%86%

97%90%

18%

14%9%

8%

2%5%3%2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A

100%91%

86%95%97%

92%

9%10%

5%

4%5%3%3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A



A large majority (82%) of parents believe that the information they provided was considered when developing his/her most recent IEP.

Exhibit 106. The information I provided about my child was considered when planning and writing his/her most recent IEP.

While the majority of parents of students with IEPs report that that they are satisfied with the amount of information they receive regarding their student’s performance (61% agree), a large proportion do not feel well-informed (35% disagree). Parents of students in grades 3-6 had the lowest level of agreement (53%).

Exhibit 107. I am getting adequate information about my child’s performance.

Overall, 66% of parents reported that their child’s progress report effectively communicates information about his or her growth on IEP goals but 24% report that they do not. Parents of students with disabilities in grades K-2 were more positive.

Exhibit 108. My child’s progress report effectively communicates positive progress and/or lack of progress.

64%96%

80%86%

79%82%

36%

18%9%

15%14%

4%2%

5%5%3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A

55%61%

53%64%

72%61%

45%35%

43%36%21%

35%

4%4%

8%4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A

55%70%

65%68%69%

66%

27%17%27%23%23%

24%

18%13%

8%9%8%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Agree Disagree N/A



Parents also had the opportunity to share areas of strength of special education services in SPS in an open-ended question on the survey. As supported by the following responses, these themes emerged:

x Supportive and Communicative Staff - friendly approach; good communication; class teachers have done great work communicating with us and connecting with special education team for my child's need; staff is very caring and communicate to us any problems promptly; they care and it shows; provide a caring and supportive environment that is sensitive to my child’s emotional development; I like how my child feels comfortable going to the teachers for advice and especially for homework/classwork help without the teachers making any comments; their heart is in the right place; wonderful staff provides their best; staff knows my child well and seems to be sincerely interested in his well-being; service delivery providers are invested in the progress of our child; teachers are very warm and caring; school listens to our concerns and feedback and incorporates them into the IEP; they want to support children with special needs and do their best to work with parents; I have been treated kindly and respectfully by so many teachers and staff and I have great optimism for my son to continue to do well; nurturing is what SPS does well; teachers make themselves available before / after school for additional help; some specialists show great devotion to their students; appreciate all the hard work and engagement of all the specialists each teacher - classroom, specialist or special ed teacher - in their hearts they want to do right for each student based on their IEP.

x Knowledgeable Staff - staff and guidance counselors are knowledgeable; highly skilled in looking at the whole child; staff with sped experience are highly qualified to support students’ needs; special education staff is friendly and knowledgeable; staff members are skilled and kind and patient; their understanding of my child shows in the connection they've created, as my child has grown more confident in school work and in life; talented special ed teachers, especially for reading and math.

x Overall Satisfaction - we are satisfied with the services; completely satisfied with the current plan; very pleased with our child's progress at the school; academic program is good for all students.

x Inclusive Environment - school fosters a community of respect; my child does not feel stigmatized because of their placement; opportunity to be in the community; good at including all students in community; district provides environment where kids feel comfortable and encouraged in the special education program; my child has never reported being bullied or shunned because of his status as a special needs student; kids are not isolated while in special education; we feel our child is very welcomed at the school and she is able to participate in a lot of activities with her classmates; my son feels completely involved in the high school even though he is in a substantially separate program; unified basketball and track at SHS have been so important to my son’s development in many ways; feels comfortable asking for help during academic lab and in the classroom; provide opportunities for the student to learn and grow within their own abilities; school does a good job at making sure students with any form of disabilities are included in everything, no one feels left out.

x Collaboration - teachers work well together in special education and general education; Middle School and High School are doing fantastic work, and the integration of the school psychologist and school counselors has put a good set of supports around my son; team approach at high school is very good and my child's disabilities are being addressed.

x Student Advocacy and Transition - SHS does a good job at asking the child to advocate for themselves and will only give breaks if they ask; Pathways and POST program are dedicated staff that provide quality special education including vocational, functional and academic services to their students; high school does a great job of handing the IEP to the student and tells them to look it over and asks them to determine what can be taken off.



x Availability of Resources and Programs– services are available; my son has been given all the resources needed for a successful school year; very strong special education program that is providing quality services to the children that are in need; providing Academic Lab, Wilson reading program, in-class support with writing; strong ASD program; the TBL program has been a godsend for us; academic lab and one-to-one instruction very helpful; reading services provided are making an impact on ability; the academic lab model works well for my child; the hand-off from Middle School to High School was handled very well; makes it easy to get the needed services and implementation; they follow the guide set in the IEP; teachers craft the service delivery according to his needs; teachers have all been very attentive and seem to collect a lot of data on how my son meets the goals in his IEP.

x Academic Lab - without AC Lab my child wouldn't be doing as well; the AC Lab program is keeping my child on track and provides the one on one instruction he desperately needs; have the services available for my child's needs; academic lab model works well for my child, teachers make themselves available before / after school for additional help.

x Responsive to Student Needs - school staff is always open to trying new things with our child in order to accomplish goals; done a good job of tailoring a program to meet the specific needs of my son, willing to pivot when necessary as we collectively grew in our understanding of what will work; teachers have made accommodations for my son for test and quizzes which has made a huge difference this year; providing services early and developing IEP early based on feedback from Pre K teachers; team does a great job adjusting my son’s IEP to reflect those issues and get them corrected in a timely manner; school accepted my recommendation on how to deal with my son when he is in stressful moments; allow IEP team to reconvene when I have any concerns; they have been very responsive helping to bring my child to an academically appropriate level.

Parents also had the opportunity to share areas for improvement in an open-ended question on the survey. As supported by the following responses, these themes emerged:

x Implementation of Services - IEP is not implemented at the classroom level; ALL teachers need to read and implement the IEP, even if a language teacher is not a part of IEP meetings and planning they need to follow the same guidelines; services, knowledge, accommodations should be consistent at all schools; not all that is on paper on the IEP is implemented, especially when in the regular classroom setting; regular ed teachers do not have enough experience with students with disabilities; worried about whether IEP or the supports put in place are going to be followed; programs should be implemented consistently across all schools and available resources (staff and programs) should all coordinated between all schools; an elevated situation may occur preventing scheduled pull outs and push ins but that should be the exception, not the rule; the SPED staff is far too overtaxed to adequately supply the services we need; Services should be thoughtful and consider the actual impact and benefit not just box checking; parents need to make an extra effort to check-in what their child needs and what they are actually receiving; the school should not only be defining goals but also stating exactly how the goals will be achieved; realistic goals should be set and clear markers of progress should be defined.

x Communication Between Staff - general education teachers are generally unaware of the special education needs; more communication and collaboration with teachers and parents; better communication between special services and guidance counselors; communication between staff is practically non-existent; if we tell one person something, no one else on the team ever hears it; communication between the special ed and classroom teachers could be improved; work collaboratively; wish that all teachers would read the IEPs, feeling that some of the specialists do not care enough to take the time to read them; there is no communication when handing over IEPs from teacher to teacher; no communication/ meeting with teacher at the start of a new year.



x Additional and Consistent Staff - elementary schools truly need more help in the psychology area; guidance counselor is overwhelmed; hire additional therapists so one doesn't have the load of the entire school; I hope there will be some stability of staff; high turnover of staff for the next several years.

x Access to Advanced Coursework– believe academic progress will be halted and future education diminished for my son due to the district's inability to accommodate special needs in advanced classes; special ed students are treated very differently, they are not allowed to take the courses that they want to if they have AcLab.

x Communication with Parents - limited to no communication about the IEP program once services began; update parents with kids' progress on a more frequent basis; currently parents get to know it only annually; needs to be far better communication around transition to receiving services at a new school; want more frequent information from his teacher or specialists about how my son is progressing; wish there was more communication at the beginning of the year between us as parents and the new classroom teacher to acknowledge that they have read our child's IEP and are aware of what her needs are; not enough consistent communication with parents; responses are too punitive; more frequent communication regarding child's progress from specialist and class teacher; more communication from teacher and parent perspective not only in the IEP meeting; they need to communicate a lot more, once a year (end of year) status is not enough; communication as children move between schools (from elementary to middle and middle to high school) could be better; general education teachers could provide more attention to the comments section in PowerSchool to better inform the parents on progress.

x Parent/School Relationship - respect parent input; every meeting every year is a fight. I feel that we are not on the same team trying to work toward the same goal; would be great if staff and administrators would begin to see family members as a part of the team, aside from the IEP meetings; relationship with the SPED administrators feels adversarial; parents should not be bullied by teachers when asking for appropriate communication; too often something has been agreed to in the meeting and it's not put into the IEP. No TRUST in SPS; educated parents on the IEP process, what to expect and keeping parents included in their children's schedule and needs; more than anything a parent needs some compassion and willingness from the team to work together instead of giving a thumb down to everything; SPS has a terrible reputation among parents of special needs kids in this region; I feel excluded from the school completely; deny, delay, stall, then minimal implementation. It's frustrating, time consuming and expensive to deal with the special education in this district.

x Inclusive Opportunities - more push in of speech and OT to general education classrooms; match participation in general education activities as appropriate. Adjust class schedule each year to match needs and progress of student; more buddy or social friendship programs can be helpful, having a friend for a teenagers makes a huge difference; regular classroom teacher should be more helpful and supportive in helping acclimate to the classroom; special needs activities or clubs for students with autism; offering the least supportive environment the child needs; be transparent in the classroom placement decision making process (mainstream vs separate) and include parents in this discussion; all students should be working toward future cooperation, productivity and independence.

x Appropriate Supports for Students - system totally fails those children who do not have a clear cut learning disability; don’t feel the services are actually individualized; not enough focus on building in tools for a child with a disability to grow and achieve; improved executive function skills teaching for ASD children and teachers in gen ed class with these students; screen for dyslexia; should be a set of standards for responding to common behavioral issues; better understanding



of ADHD and the emotional impact it can have on struggling children; more attention to intersectionality of race/gender and disability.

x Transition Planning - more planning on adulthood and vocational training; budgeting is simply not enough to meet the special education needs of the children to become productive adults in society; services should be appropriate for an academic setting and focused on future independence and productivity.

x Staff Professional Development - professional development to educate staff regarding specific disabilities (and how these impacts learning.).



VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations

Recommendations By implementing these recommendations with fidelity, SPS will accomplish the following goals:

1. Set an overall district-wide vision for providing high quality services to students with disabilities aligned to and in support of SPS’s overall strategic plan.

2. Create a culture that promotes the successful inclusion of students with disabilities. 3. Develop measures to drive key strategies for positive changes in behavior, processes, and

culture, while encouraging continuous improvement and innovation.

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) Goal: Establish and operationalize a districtwide MTSS framework to ensure all students receive the instruction and interventions needed to support their academic and social/emotional learning.

Vision and Leadership 1 District Leadership. Because MTSS is based in the provision of instruction and intervention,

including the foundation of a core curriculum that is implemented with fidelity, charge the Director of Curriculum and Instruction with responsibility for leading the development of this initiative. All district leadership with responsibility for instruction and providing related support to schools should be engaged in planning and add their expertise. It is expected that the Director of Student Services will have a major support role in this initiative.

2 Implementation Plan. Establish a written vision and standards for practices that provide clear, non-negotiable expectations. Develop a comprehensive phased-in implementation plan that includes preschool through secondary grade levels.

3 MTSS Leadership Teams. Build on current work of district and elementary school administrators to more systematically plan for MTSS roll-out. Formalize a district leadership team and establish leadership teams at the school level to support MTSS planning and implementation. Establish clear roles and responsibilities for teams.

4 Universal Design for Learning. Embed universal design for learning (UDL) principles into the MTSS framework. Provide district-wide training on how UDL operates in practice across all settings and for all students.

Standards and Implementation 5 MTSS Delivery. Build on current standards to promote common language for implementing MTSS

and for professional development to include the following:

a. Universal screening and progress-monitoring tools and use of benchmark data to identify students for the MTSS process in all elementary schools.

b. Core curriculum expectations, including expectations for differentiated instruction. c. Three levels of increasingly intensive research-based interventions, including

reading, math and behavior that are culturally and linguistically appropriate, and that are available short and long term.



d. Interventions that are research-based, specific enough to monitor for fidelity at multiple grade levels, and appropriate for differing content levels.

e. Progress monitoring, including the calculation of targets for student progress when provided with appropriate research-based interventions, and on initiating a referral for special education services when sufficient progress is not made after providing the appropriate interventions.

f. Scheduling, including best practice models for facilitating use of the broadest range of intervention providers.

g. Standardized district-wide forms and other documentation. h. Professional development, including expectations for providing and requiring staff

participation. i. Active student involvement, including progress monitoring and planning. j. Electronic communication tools and other methods for collaborating with

parents/families and providing them access to information. k. MTSS interface with referral for special education and Section 504 evaluations.

6 Reading and Math Coaches. Develop a coaching model to better support MTSS implementation

and to strengthen core instruction. This model will allow schools to provide job-embedded, targeted coaching to teachers. Redefine roles of reading specialists, math specialists, and curriculum coordinators to support this shift.

7 Social Emotional Learning. Establish goals and universal expectations that schools will provide social emotional learning (SEL) as part of its MTSS work, including the use of an SEL curriculum. Conduct ongoing professional learning and continue to build out SEL resources for school-based staff, parents/families, and students. Adopt a common Tier 1 SEL framework across all elementary schools to ensure consistency of practice.

8 Secondary Schools. Determine timeline for MTSS implementation in the middle and high school. Develop resources specific to tiered models of intervention support and offer professional learning opportunities designed for secondary school-based staff.

9 Written Guidance. Create an MTSS manual and update at least annually. Develop metrics to measure implementation at each school and determine what decisions school-based teams can make versus what activities SPS is requiring each school to do.

Data, Monitoring, and Accountability 10 Data Review. Regularly collect, analyze, report, and follow up on student academic/behavior-related

data. Disaggregate student-level data by special need areas, race/ethnicity, EL, socio-economic disadvantage, school, school grade levels, as feasible and appropriate, to inform decision-making for the following issues:

10.1 Representation of students in various special needs and disability areas to identify over/ underrepresentation and establish follow-up activities.

10.2 Performance data to identify instructional gaps. Benchmark progress of students with an IEP against their general education peers.

10.3 Determination of when students should be considered for Tier 2 or 3 interventions or referral to special education.

11 Progress Monitoring. Establish criteria for how progress on interventions will be monitored and on initiating a referral for special education services when sufficient progress is not made after providing the appropriate interventions. Determine what is an SPS expectation for progress monitoring and what will be a school-based decision.



12 Walk-through Protocols. Review and/or develop walk-through protocols to ensure that they include indicators relevant to differentiated instruction and MTSS implementation. Conduct walk-throughs at least monthly to monitor the extent to which school practices conform to the guidance provided by SPS, and initiate technical assistance, professional development, coaching, and mentoring as necessary to improve practices.

13 Electronic Record Systems. Use the SIS or other centralized electronic system to capture and report on key MTSS data. Develop user-friendly reports by school, grade level, class, program, and other categories to inform decision-making. Establish criteria for when and how data are entered and review district-wide and school-based reports at least monthly.

Professional Learning 14 Professional Learning. Ensure school-based staff regularly receive the following training:

14.1 Data Collection and Progress Monitoring

14.2 Academic Interventions

14.3 Social Emotional Learning and Interventions

14.4 Universal Design for Learning

14.5 Culturally Relevant Teaching

14.6 Differentiated Instruction

Parent and Family Engagement 15 Communication Protocols. Establish communication protocols that ensure parents are included as

active partners throughout the intervention process.

16 Family-Friendly Guides. Develop a family-friendly reference guide about MTSS and intervention supports available to struggling students.

17 Written Materials. Develop common written materials to ensure consistency of communication practices.

18 Translated Materials. Provide translated documents for parents/family members.



Special Education Service Delivery Goal: Maximize inclusive and effective instruction, intervention and support for all students, including those with special needs.

Vision and Leadership 19 Academic Optimism. Build, promote and support a district wide culture that will help instill a value

for academic optimism and growth mindset so that all the adults in the building share the responsibility for the achievement of every student, including those with disabilities. Presume that all students are competent and able and should be exposed to the highest levels of rigor.

20 Uncompromised Instructional Focus. Create an expectation regarding instruction that clearly communicates that a key focus of the district is to ensure that students with special needs make significant progress, to the greatest extent possible, in the general education curriculum, receive rigorous standards-aligned instruction, and experience the high quality delivery of interventions, differentiation, accommodations, modifications and specially designed instruction in every class.

21 Inclusive Practices Planning, Guidance, and Implementation. Select and use a structured framework that will help promote and support the implementation of best practices for inclusive education including the provision of high yield co-teaching and specially designed instruction. Develop a clearly articulated district/school implementation guide for inclusive practices and determine what role schools will have in adapting it to their needs versus what will be required by SPS. Create guidance around developing inclusive master school schedules (which includes common co-teacher planning time) and assist schools with implementing them. Set the expectation that inclusive education is the responsibility of all teachers.

Standards and Implementation 22 Continuum of Services. Review existing programs to determine program efficacy, expectations for

students and alignment to district vision of inclusion. Ensure opportunities for flexible grouping of instruction/services that are not dependent on a student’s “program” or disability area. Shift district philosophy away from a place-based service delivery model to services that are flexibly designed to best fit student needs.

23 Equity and Access to Advanced Coursework for Students with Disabilities. Develop a coherent plan across grade levels and schools to enable a higher proportion of potentially qualified students with disabilities to benefit from advanced academic studies/courses. Provide guidance to IEP teams, school-based staff, and parents about how students with disabilities can access Advanced Placement and other advanced courses, with the appropriate supports and accommodations. Analyze current barriers to access for students with disabilities and develop a plan to mitigate these challenges. Establish a goal to increase current enrollment of students with disabilities in advanced courses and monitor enrollment data on a quarterly basis.

24 Special Education Policies, Procedures and Guidance. Develop written policies, procedures and other resources available to users/stakeholders to support IEP development, implementation, and compliance as follows:

x Create a Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual

x Create IEP Writing and Best Practices Guide reflecting IEP development process

x Set IEP self-auditing expectations for schools, monitor results to inform strategies



25 Program Criteria. Develop clear, written entry and exit criteria for all programs. When new programs are created, long term planning must occur to ensure appropriate supports can be provided across all grade levels.

26 Program Naming. Consider changing the name of the ASD Program at the middle and elementary school levels to remove the disability from the program name.

27 TBL Program. The TBL program at the elementary level is not being implemented to best meet the needs of the students in those programs. The program requires a significant overhaul. This concern is particularly true for the upper elementary program. Review current student profiles as many may be better served in other in or out of district settings. Further internal review of this program is needed.

28 Schedules. Ensure scheduled common planning time for general/special educators and professionals to have structured opportunities to share information about students. Have special educators assist general educators to understand how to best provide targeted and appropriate supports based on student needs.

29 IA Support. Implement activities to support IAs and enable them to maximize their assistance to students and teachers. Develop models to enhance communication both among IAs, and between IAs and assigned teachers to bolster their effectiveness in the classroom. Create a more robust and paraprofessional-centric professional learning program.

30 Assistive Technology. Develop and maintain a centralized inventory of all assistive technology currently used across SPS. Conduct an assistive technology survey to determine the extent to which students who need services have them and are using them as intended. Ensure staff are appropriately trained to support use. Assign a special education liaison to oversee AT coordination and support as part of their job duties.

31 Transition between grades. Develop district-wide strategy to transition meetings for students with IEPs so that teachers understand incoming students’ needs.

32 IEP Access. Include mechanisms to ensure that general education and special education teachers have read and acknowledged student plans and have specific plans to address them in their classroom. Develop procedures to ensure access is providing in a timely manner to appropriate staff when students change classes, grades, or schools.

33 Social Workers/School Adjustment Counselor. Assign one 1.0 FTE Social Worker/School Adjustment Counselor to every elementary building to address the social-emotional needs of all students in the building. The needs related to anxiety, social pressure and other related issues are complex and increasingly growing.

Data, Monitoring, and Accountability 34 State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators. Develop formative reports to assess progress toward

meeting SPP indicators, review with relevant stakeholders, and set internal goals for how to meet and/or exceed Massachusetts targets for each one.

35 MCAS Performance. Set goals at each school for subgroup populations and develop a specific plan to encourage the academic growth of students with disabilities.

36 Service Delivery Checks. Conduct routine checks on the implementation of IEP services and 504 accommodations by randomly selecting student files at various schools and conducting onsite reviews.

Professional Learning 37 Literacy Instruction. Ensure all special educators who provide support in reading are appropriately

and universally trained to deliver structured, phonics-based, multi-sensory literacy reading instruction.



38 Professional Learning. Develop a required plan for professional learning for both general and special educators. Incorporate the following:

38.1 Inclusive Practices and High Yield Co-Teaching Strategies

38.2 IEP Implementation for General Educators

38.3 Differentiated Instruction in the General Education Setting

38.4 Cultural Competency and Academic Optimism

Parent and Family Engagement 39 Parent Guide. Develop one-page informational guides for parents about the MTSS, 504 and special

education processes, key terminology, and frequent questions.

40 District Website. Review and update materials posted on the SPS website regarding special education programs and available supplementary aids and services at least twice a year. Once finalized, publish a family-friendly version of the Special Education Manual on the district website.

41 Post-Secondary Transition. Provide additional training and resources for parents regarding the transition process, specifically around the development of post-secondary goals and diploma options.

42 Student Engagement. Develop and implement strategies to ensure that students are active participants in the planning and implementation of their IEPs, including support and coaching for their role as self-advocate.



District Organization and Operations Goal: Establish clear expectations and align staffing and other resources to support SPS’s inclusive vision

Vision and Leadership 43 Vision for Special Education. Develop a guiding philosophy on inclusion and a long-range strategic

plan for Special Education in SPS. Create an expectation regarding instruction that clearly communicates to schools, and the broader community, that a key focus of SPS is to ensure that students with special needs make significant progress, to the greatest extent possible, in the general education curriculum, receive rigorous standards-aligned instruction, and experience the high-quality delivery of interventions, differentiation, accommodations, modifications and specially designed instruction in every class.

44 Collaboration. There is the need for greater collaboration with the Director of Student Services and School Principals to ensure appropriate and consistent decision-making related to special education that is grounded in best practice and compliant with state/federal guidance and regulations. Greater collaboration and coordination between elementary school principals is also needed to ensure students with IEPs have access to an equitable experience across SPS.

Standards and Implementation 45 Conduct an In-Depth Analysis of Staffing Allocations. There is a need for more professional,

certificated staff with specialized skills. Conduct a staffing levels audit to ensure current staffing ratios are appropriate to achieve meaningful inclusion. Specifically, determine if current IA ratios support the district’s vision of inclusion. Create a workgroup with representatives from school and central office leadership (including Special Education and Finance) to assess the extent to which current staffing supports the intended outcomes of effective service delivery. Review personnel ratios and caseload data included in this study, reallocate or add resources to ensure that SPS expectations regarding the provision of specially designed instruction and related services are reasonably capable of being met. Make the revised formula transparent and evaluate needed changes for the short and long term. Review on an annual basis.

46 Post-Secondary Transition. Hire a Transition Specialist to further build out the post-secondary programming. A core responsibility of this role will be to develop relationships with community partners. Ensure use of transition assessments in student’s post-secondary planning.

Data, Monitoring, and Accountability 47 Data Collection, Analysis & Reporting. Develop key performance indicators (KPIs), data collection

systems, and analysis to enable the superintendent and the senior leadership team and school level leadership teams to monitor the implementation of the recommendations in this report.

48 Monitoring & Accountability. Reinforce the expectation that principals are responsible for overseeing MTSS, special education, Section 504 in their buildings, and that central office leadership hold principals accountable. Establish accountability factors relevant to central office personnel for their respective roles/responsibilities, in addition to expectations for other school-based staff. Evaluate the effectiveness, fidelity, and results of the implementation of the recommendations in this report

49 Referral and Eligibility Data. Develop a reporting system that allows the district to accurately track and analyze special education referral and eligibility data. Disaggregate by subgroups and review regularly.



IX. Appendix A. Data by School

0

81.0%

36.8%

85.5%

85.2%

87.8%

78.3%

80.0%

0

13.8%

63.2%

12.7%

13.7%

12.2%

11.1%

13.8%

5.1%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

10.5%

6.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

School

PK- Grade 12+

PK

Cottage

Heights

East

Sharon High School

Sharon Middle School

General Ed Students % IEP Students % 504 Students %



B. SPS Staffing Ratios Compared to Other Districts939495

93 SPS data highlighted in green 94Sue Gamm, Esq. compiled and continues to maintain this list. She grants PCG permission to use the data in reports. 95 Districts collect and report data using different methods and different points of time, therefore student headcounts and staffing totals may vary. SPS student headcount data obtained from SPS submitted in September 2019

Speech/Lang

Pathologists1 7.7% 6.1 4.3 25.6 30.5 25.6 58.0 64.0 128.02 7.7% 6.8 5.3 43.7 54.5 39.6 60.1 75.0 171.43 8.6% 8.5 5.3 44.3 60.0 56.0 64.0 103.3 192.94 8.7% 8.6 6.1 46.2 64.0 61.4 67.4 112.0 218.75 9.0% 9.0 6.5 49.8 77.7 66.7 67.7 125.0 241.16 9.1% 9.5 6.6 57.2 79.3 68.9 68.2 139.4 267.07 9.5% 9.6 7.1 58.8 89.0 72.9 75.0 140.5 282.48 9.7% 9.8 7.2 59.9 89.9 73.1 77.1 142.7 292.99 10.1% 9.9 7.5 60.0 93.3 73.3 82.0 147.6 348.5

10 10.3% 10.3 8.3 60.0 99.6 75.0 83.1 153.5 349.711 10.4% 10.4 8.3 62.5 100.0 77.7 85.3 153.8 354.012 10.5% 10.8 8.5 62.6 101.8 86.0 88.5 163.0 367.413 10.6% 10.8 8.6 64.7 109.4 87.1 88.9 170.6 383.814 10.9% 10.8 9.7 67.1 110.3 88.8 89.1 172.1 449.115 11.0% 11.0 9.7 70.8 110.3 94.7 92.3 173.1 462.016 11.2% 11.0 9.8 71.0 112.1 95.6 92.4 179.2 492.017 11.3% 11.2 10.2 73.0 112.5 109.9 93.3 186.0 523.218 11.3% 11.2 10.3 73.4 114.2 115.5 93.5 186.0 537.719 11.4% 11.5 10.4 73.7 116.3 117.2 95.4 198.7 555.720 11.6% 11.5 11.1 73.8 117.2 123.5 98.4 204.9 596.021 11.7% 11.7 11.3 76.2 120.6 127.4 100.2 207.7 599.022 11.7% 11.7 11.6 76.8 122.8 133.1 109.4 209.5 614.423 11.7% 11.8 11.7 77.0 122.8 142.2 110.6 210.5 620.224 12.0% 11.8 12.2 77.7 122.8 156.3 114.1 218.7 639.425 12.1% 11.8 12.2 78.5 124.2 157.1 115.3 225.0 659.326 12.1% 11.8 12.3 80.4 124.9 159.7 118.6 231.0 662.327 12.3% 12.1 12.5 80.8 126.4 165.0 118.7 239.8 676.228 12.7% 12.4 12.5 83.0 127.3 188.1 119.8 241.4 678.529 12.7% 12.8 12.6 83.1 129.0 196.8 120.3 258.5 702.730 12.9% 12.8 12.6 83.2 129.8 110.8 124.0 264.8 723.731 13.1% 12.9 12.9 84.2 134.2 220.5 125.6 299.5 760.832 13.3% 13.0 13.0 95.0 136.7 249.0 126.4 309.5 761.833 13.5% 13.1 13.0 95.6 137.5 270.0 127.0 325.2 772.034 13.7% 13.2 13.2 96.5 140.5 279.7 128.6 325.7 818.635 13.8% 13.3 13.2 97.1 142.2 300.0 133.3 331.2 822.336 13.9% 13.3 13.3 97.3 144.2 302.5 136.7 331.3 869.137 14.0% 13.4 13.5 97.7 149.9 311.2 147.5 365.7 875.038 14.0% 13.7 13.7 99.4 151.7 333.4 151.4 367.4 885.039 14.0% 13.8 14.1 102.1 154.7 383.9 152.7 374.0 900.040 14.1% 14.1 14.4 104.3 159.3 486.8 162.4 384.0 903.341 14.1% 14.2 13.7 104.7 165.6 494.7 164.9 387.8 953.042 14.1% 14.2 14.4 105.4 169.4 524.5 172.6 407.5 991.143 14.4% 14.3 15.0 106.4 177.6 651.3 184.3 412.5 1011.344 14.4% 14.3 15.3 107.6 178.7 672.7 185.9 415.8 1016.445 14.5% 14.8 15.9 110.7 194.2 704.7 194.2 416.8 1034.446 14.7% 15.2 16.4 111.1 198.2 1395.0 216.7 424.3 1100.047 15.0% 15.4 16.6 111.1 208.3 2287.0 220.0 431.0 1104.348 15.1% 15.7 16.7 111.5 209.8 2981.0 241.1 438.5 1109.249 15.3% 16.0 17.3 111.9 212.9 244.3 439.7 1133.650 15.3% 16.3 17.5 114.4 218.7 244.7 442.9 1169.351 15.5% 16.5 17.6 114.9 225.0 265.3 469.9 1221.652 15.8% 16.8 18.4 115.9 231.1 386.0 473.0 1262.053 16.1% 17.1 19.0 127.4 233.0 397.4 494.5 1309.054 16.2% 17.3 19.0 130.1 240.3 402.9 498.2 1326.055 16.2% 18.1 19.3 132.7 242.6 697.0 524.5 1444.756 16.6% 18.2 19.4 133.4 265.2 699.6 546.9 1487.157 17.2% 18.3 20.2 136.1 285.9 833.5 550.0 1630.058 17.4% 19.5 20.6 136.5 286.8 2981.0 615.6 1650.059 17.6% 19.8 20.8 139.4 295.0 3245.0 643.3 1684.360 17.8% 20.3 21.1 139.8 299.5 3313.0 693.4 1739.761 18.2% 20.4 22.1 144.0 318.5 706.7 1785.662 18.3% 20.6 22.7 157.1 336.9 712.6 1848.663 18.8% 21.0 23.9 171.1 376.4 772.0 2023.064 18.8% 21.4 25.3 191.4 395.8 809.2 2186.165 20.0% 21.9 25.3 262.3 422.1 1028.8 2473.566 20.0% 22.6 25.4 264.7 1512.5 2573.267 20.8% 23.5 26.3 313.9 1684.3 2657.568 20.9% 23.7 26.3 340.3 1987.3 5962.069 20.9% 23.8 30.9 410.070 21.0% 28.0 32.6 596.271 24.8% 36.1 55.2

Avg. 14.0% 14.5 14.7 117.4 168.2 333.2 173.9 406.6 1015.3

Percentage of Students with IEPs of Total Enrollment & Students with IEPs to Staff Ratio in Ascending Order

Rank % IEPs Special Educators Paraeducators Psychologists Social Workers Nurses Occupational Therapists

Physical Therapists



SPS Staffing Ratios: Special Education Teacher, Paraprofessional, Speech-Language therapist, and Psychologist

Agawam Public Schools MA 4,347 15.1% 656 39 16.8 111.5 100 6.6 43.5 15 43.7 289.8 3 218.7 1449.0Alexandria City Public Schools VA 15,105 11.6% 1,754 162 10.8 93.2 151 11.6 100.0 28 62.6 539.5 20 89.0 766.8Atlanta Public Schools GA 43,443 11.4% 4,950 431 11.5 100.8 224 22.1 193.9 65 76.2 668.4 22 225.0 1974.7Anchorage School Dist AK 48,154 14.1% 6,779 716.8 9.5 67.2 786.4 8.6 61.2 65 104.3 740.8 44.7 151.7 1077.3Arlington Pub Sch VA 26,975 14.1% 3,811 415.7 9.2 64.9 270 14.1 99.9 36.6 104.1 737.0 37.9 100.6 711.7Austin Pub S D TX 84,676 9.5% 8,062 772.5 10.4 109.6 824 9.8 102.8 70.5 114.4 1201.1 34.6 233.0 2447.3Baltimore City Publ Sch MD 82,824 15.5% 12,866 1,121 11.5 73.9 620 20.8 133.6 92 139.8 900.3 NA NA NABaltimore County P Sch MD 107,033 11.3% 12,127 1025.4 11.8 104.4 2305 5.3 46.4 187.5 64.7 570.8 85.3 142.2 1254.8Boston Public Schools MA 54,966 21.0% 11,534 1200 9.6 45.8 800 14.4 68.7 147 78.5 373.9 48 240.3 1145.1Bellevue SD WA 18,883 10.3% 1,947 82.7 23.5 228.3 118.6 16.4 159.2 17.4 111.9 1085.2 17.3 112.5 1091.5Bridgeport CT 20,300 12.9% 2,618 204 12.8 99.5 254 10.3 79.9 25 104.7 812.0 33 79.3 615.2Buffalo Public Schools NY 46,583 16.6% 7,744 753 10.3 61.9 439 17.6 106.1 109 71.0 427.4 62 124.9 751.3Cambridge Publ Schools MA 6,000 20.0% 1,200 176 6.8 34.1 103 11.7 58.3 20 60.0 300.0 22 54.5 272.7Carpentersville IL 19,844 15.8% 3,139 227 13.8 87.4 380 8.3 52.2 43 73.0 461.5 28 112.1 708.7Chicago Public Schools IL 397,092 13.7% 54,376 4,649 11.7 85.4 4,228 12.9 93.9 390 139.4 1018.2 261 208.3 1521.4Cincinnati Pub Schools OH 51,431 17.4% 8,928 457 19.5 112.5 801 11.1 64.2 62 144.0 829.5 57.7 154.7 891.4Clark Cty School Dist NV 309,476 10.4% 32,167 2,247 14.3 137.7 1,346 23.9 229.9 299 107.6 1035.0 180 178.7 1719.3Cleve Hts-UnivHtsCty OH 6,000 18.3% 1,100 83 13.3 72.3 58 19.0 103.4 7 157.1 857.1 8 137.5 750.0Compton Unified SD CA 26,703 11.2% 2,981 126 23.7 211.9 118 25.3 226.3 5 596.2 5340.6 14 212.9 1907.4DeKalb 428 IL 6,249 14.1% 879 58 15.2 107.7 205 4.3 30.5 9 97.7 694.3 7.5 117.2 833.2DesMoines Public Schls IA 31,654 15.3% 4,854 493 9.8 64.2 358.5 13.5 88.3 37.3 130.1 848.6 11.5 422.1 2752.5D.C. Public Schools D.C 48,991 17.6% 8,603 669 12.9 73.2 653 13.2 75.0 90 95.6 544.3 78 110.3 628.1Davenport Comm Sch IA 15,302 12.1% 1,857 188 9.9 81.4 287 6.5 53.3 NA NA NA NA NA NADeer Valley Unified SD AZ 36,086 9.1% 3,289 190 17.3 189.9 229 14.4 157.6 49 67.1 736.4 108 30.5 334.1Denver Public Schools CO 78,352 11.7% 9,142 592 15.4 132.4 528 17.3 148.4 94 97.3 833.5 98 93.3 799.5ESD 112 WA 13,764 14.4% 1,987 55 36.1 250.3 158 12.6 87.1 20 99.4 688.2 12 165.6 1147.0Elgin U-46 IL 40,525 13.1% 5,304 252.8 21.0 160.3 288.5 18.4 140.5 71.9 73.8 563.6 20 265.2 2026.3Everett Pub Schools WA 6,100 17.2% 1,049 74 14.2 82.4 51 20.6 119.6 4 262.3 1525.0 5 209.8 1220.0Fort Worth TX 79,885 7.7% 6,144 520 11.8 153.6 450 13.7 177.5 73 84.2 1094.3 31 198.2 2576.9Greenville County SC 70,282 14.1% 9,894 463 21.4 151.8 376 26.3 186.9 93 106.4 755.7 25 395.8 2811.3Houston Indepen SD TX 200,568 8.7% 17,489 1,625 10.8 123.4 1,145 15.3 175.2 158 110.7 1269.4 NA NA NAKalamazoo Pub Schools MI 12,100 13.8% 1,667 70 23.8 172.9 79 21.1 153.2 15 111.1 806.7 NA NA NAKent Pub Schools WA 27,196 11.3% 3,069 148.7 20.6 182.9 318 9.7 85.5 32.3 95.0 842.0 25 122.8 1087.8Lake Washington WA 26,864 11.7% 3,145 155.1 20.3 173.2 241.5 13.0 111.2 32.6 96.5 824.0 24.7 127.3 1087.6Kyrene School District AZ 17,910 8.6% 1,544 141 11.0 127.0 124 12.5 144.4 27 57.2 663.3 14 110.3 1279.3Lakota Local OH 18,500 9.7% 1,800 126 14.3 146.8 120 15.0 154.2 39 46.2 474.4 18 100.0 1027.8LAUSD CA 521,880 12.7% 66,236 5,331 12.4 97.9 6,466 10.2 80.7 496 133.4 1051.2 514 129.0 1016.3Lincoln NE 1,060 12.1% 128 21 6.1 50.5 21 6.1 50.5 5 25.6 212.0 2 64.0 530.0Madison Pub Schls WI 27,185 14.0% 3,808 347 11.0 78.3 448 8.5 60.7 86 44.3 316.1 49 77.7 554.8Marlborough Pub Sch NJ 4,835 24.8% 1,198 141 8.5 34.3 115 10.4 42.0 7 171.1 690.7 4 299.5 1208.8Memphis City TN 110,863 15.0% 16,637 912 18.2 121.6 655 25.4 169.3 53 313.9 2091.8 58 286.8 1911.4Miami-Dade FL 376,264 10.6% 40,012 2,500 16.0 150.5 1,226 32.6 306.9 209 191.4 1800.3 206 194.2 1826.5Milwaukee WI 78,533 20.9% 16,406 1281 12.8 61.3 988 16.6 79.5 169 97.1 464.7 136 120.6 577.4Montgomery Cty Sch AL 146,812 11.7% 17,226 1,588 10.8 92.5 1,398 12.3 105.0 293 58.8 501.1 97 177.6 1513.5Naperville 203 IL 17982 11.0% 1,978 150 13.2 119.9 237 8.3 75.9 33 59.9 544.9 22 89.9 817.4New Bedford MA 12,692 20.9% 2,655 204 13.0 62.2 205 13.0 61.9 26 102.1 488.2 9 295.0 1410.2Northern Valley RHSD NJ 2,303 17.8% 410 28 14.6 82.3 30 13.7 76.8 1 410.0 2303.0 3 136.7 767.7Oak Park Sch Dist 97 IL 5,400 16.2% 875 78 11.2 69.2 90 9.7 60.0 14 62.5 385.7 8 109.4 675.0N. Chicago (in Dist.) IL 3,803 16.1% 614 39 15.7 97.5 27 22.7 140.9 8 76.8 475.4 5 122.8 760.6Oakland Unified SD CA 33,312 16.2% 5,401 404 13.4 82.5 175 30.9 190.4 47 114.9 708.8 43.5 124.2 765.8Pittsburgh Pub Schools PA 28,000 18.2% 5,096 359 14.2 78.0 252 20.2 111.1 40 127.4 700.0 16 318.5 1750.0Portland Public Schools OR 46,596 14.0% 6,513 355 18.3 131.3 535 12.2 87.1 92 70.8 506.5 56 116.3 832.1Prince William County Schools VA 90,930 10.1% 9,148 774 11.8 117.5 362 25.3 251.2 67 136.5 1357.2 32 285.9 2841.6Providence RI 23,695 18.8% 4,460 340 13.1 69.7 339 13.2 69.9 40 111.5 592.4 28 159.3 846.3Renton WA 14,343 14.7% 2,108 129 16.3 111.2 294 7.2 48.8 20 105.4 717.2 15 140.5 956.2Rockford Pub S IL 28,973 14.0% 4,065 336 12.1 86.2 334 12.2 86.7 49 83.0 591.3 24 169.4 1207.2Round Rock TX 43,000 7.7% 3,313 369 9.0 116.5 171 19.4 251.5 41 80.8 1048.8 29 114.2 1482.8San Diego Unified SD CA 132,500 12.3% 16,300 1,100 14.8 120.5 1,300 12.5 101.9 196 83.2 676.0 129 126.4 1027.1Saugus MA 3,012 15.3% 462 28 16.5 107.6 29 15.9 103.9 6 77.0 502.0 NA NA NASch Dist of Philadelphia PA 168,181 20.0% 33,686 1,535 21.9 109.6 610 55.2 275.7 99 340.3 1698.8 100 336.9 1681.8Scottsdale AZ 26,544 10.9% 2,891 246 11.8 107.9 230 12.6 115.4 39.4 73.4 673.7 28.4 101.8 934.6Sharon Public Schools MA 3,755 14.4% 540 46 11.7 81.6 101 5.3 37.2 9 60.0 417.2 9 60.0 417.2Shelby County (Memphis) TN 114760 12.7% 14,556 852 17.1 134.7 768 19.0 149.4 55 264.7 2086.5 60 242.6 1912.7St. Paul MN 38,086 18.8% 7,152 523 13.7 72.8 536 13.3 71.1 97 73.7 392.6 19 376.4 2004.5Sun Prairie Area S Dist WI 6,656 10.5% 697 62 11.2 107.4 93 7.5 71.6 14 49.8 475.4 7 99.6 950.9Tacoma Pub Schl WA 32,412 12.0% 3,894 172.5 22.6 187.9 223 17.5 145.3 33.6 115.9 964.6 27 144.2 1200.4Tucson Unified SD AZ 56,000 14.5% 8,092 409 19.8 136.9 419 19.3 133.7 61 132.7 918.0 54 149.9 1037.0Washoe County Dist NV 63,310 13.5% 8,551 472 18.1 134.1 325 26.3 194.8 77 111.1 822.2 37 231.1 1711.1Williamson Cty Schl TN 31,292 9.0% 2,824 213 13.3 146.9 400 7.1 78.2 34 83.1 920.4 23 122.8 1360.5West Aurora SD IL 12,725 13.3% 1,688 120 14.1 106.0 101 16.7 126.0 21 80.4 606.0 13 129.8 978.8Worcester MA 24,825 20.8% 5,172 254 20.4 97.7 366 14.1 67.8 38 136.1 653.3 NA NA NA

Averages 14.0% 14.6 110 15.3 115 117.7 867 167.6 1233

Ratios for Special Educator, Paraeducator, Speech/Lang, and

PsychologistState

Nu

mb

er Ratio To:

Nu

mb

er

To

tal E

nro

llm

en

t

Incidence Special Educator Paraeducator Speech/Lang

Sp

ed

Sp

ed

Sp

ed

Psychologist

% S

pEd

Sp

Ed

En

r

Nu

mb

er Ratio To:

All

All

All

All

Ratio To:

Nu

mb

er Ratio To:

Sp

ed



SPS Staffing Ratios: Social Worker, Nursing, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy

Ratio Ratio

Sp

ed

All

SpEd

All

SpEd

SpEd

Agawam Public Schools MA 4,347 656 NA NA NA 8 82.0 543.4 3 218.7 3 218.7Alexandria City Public Schools VA 15,105 1,754 24 73.1 629.4 19 92.3 795.0 4 438.5 1.5 1169.3Atlanta Public Schools GA 48,154 6,779 NA NA NA 112.8 60.1 426.9 21.9 309.5 7.8 869.1Anchorage School Dist AK 43,443 4,950 30 165.0 1448.1 58 85.3 749.0 12 412.5 3 1650.0Arlington Pub Sch VA 26,975 3,811 32.3 118.0 835.1 NA NA NA 24.4 156.2 5.8 657.1Austin Pub S D TX 84,676 8,062 21 383.9 4032.2 68 118.6 1245.2 19 424.3 13 620.2Baltimore City Publ Sch MD 82,824 12,866 193 66.7 429.1 78 164.9 1061.8 20 643.3 5 2573.2Baltimore County P Sch MD 107,033 12,127 48.7 249.0 2197.8 179.8 67.4 595.3 65.2 186.0 27 449.1Boston Public Schools MA 18,883 1,947 4 486.8 4720.8 13.2 147.5 1430.5 5.3 367.4 5.3 367.4Bellevue SD WA 54,966 11534 NA NA NA 100 115.3 549.7 67 172.1 17 678.5Bridgeport CT 20,300 2,618 38 68.9 534.2 28 93.5 725.0 7 374.0 2 1309.0Buffalo Public Schools NY 46,583 7744 48.5 159.7 960.5 NA NA NA 75 103.3 29 267.0Cambridge Publ Schools MA 6,000 1,200 16 75.0 375.0 0 NA NA 16 75.0 7 171.4Carpentersville IL 19,844 3,139 36.5 86.0 543.7 27.5 114.1 721.6 22 142.7 6 523.2Chicago Public Schools IL 404,151 50,566 355.7 142.2 1136.2 334 151.4 1210.0 115 439.7 35 1444.7Cincinnati Pub Schools OH 51,431 8,928 NA NA NA NA NA NA 19 469.9 5 1785.6Clark Cty School Dist NV 309,476 32,167 NA NA NA 173 185.9 1788.9 68 473.0 29 1109.2Cleve Hts-UnivHtsCty OH 6,000 1,100 7 157.1 857.1 5 220.0 1200.0 2 550.0 1 1100.0Compton Unified SD CA 26,703 2981 1 2981.0 26703.0 1 2981.0 26703.0 1.5 1987.3 0.5 5962.0DeKalb 428 IL 6,249 879 8 109.9 781.1 7 125.6 892.7 3.4 258.5 1.3 676.2DesMoines Public Schls IA 31,654 4,854 25.8 188.1 1226.9 58.4 83.1 542.0 7 693.4 4.8 1011.3D.C. Public Schools D.C 48,991 8,603 90 95.6 544.3 127 67.7 385.8 48 179.2 16 537.7Davenport Comm Sch IA 15,302 1,857 NA NA NA 7 265.3 2186.0 NA NA NA NADeer Valley Unified SD AZ 36,086 3,289 NA NA NA 37 88.9 975.3 19 173.1 4 822.3Denver Public Schools CO 78,352 9,142 74 123.5 1058.8 77 118.7 1017.6 25 365.7 12 761.8ESD 112 WA 40,525 5,304 56 94.7 723.7 59.5 89.1 681.1 25.2 210.5 4 1326.0Elgin U-46 IL 13,764 1,987 NA NA NA 5 397.4 2752.8 6 331.2 3 662.3Everett Pub Schools WA 6,100 1,049 2 524.5 3050.0 11 95.4 554.5 2 524.5 3 349.7Fort Worth TX 79,885 6,144 NA NA NA 106 58.0 753.6 16 384.0 10 614.4Greenville County SC 70,282 9,894 20 494.7 3514.1 132 75.0 532.4 14 706.7 4 2473.5Houston Indepen SD TX 200,568 17,489 26 672.7 7714.2 25 699.6 8022.7 17 1028.8 8 2186.1Kalamazoo Pub Schools MI 12,100 1,667 5 333.4 2420.0 2 833.5 6050.0 4 416.8 3 555.7Kent Pub Schools WA 27,196 3069 2.2 1395.0 12361.8 NA NA NA 12.8 239.8 4.8 639.4Lake Washington WA 17,910 1,544 NA NA NA 4 386.0 4477.5 2 772.0 2 772.0Kyrene School District AZ 26864 3145 NA NA NA 23.6 133.3 1138.3 19.3 163.0 3.3 953.0Lakota Local OH 18,500 1,800 6 300.0 3083.3 14 128.6 1321.4 8 225.0 2 900.0LAUSD CA 521,880 66,236 94 704.7 5552.5 164 402.9 3174.3 250 264.8 45 1487.1Lincoln NE 1,060 128 5 25.6 212.0 2 64.0 530.0 2 64.0 1 128.0Madison Pub Schls WI 27,185 3,808 68 56.0 399.8 38 100.2 715.4 34 112.0 13 292.9Marlborough Pub Sch NJ 4,835 1,198 9 133.1 537.2 10 119.8 483.5 4 299.5 2 599.0Memphis City TN 110,863 16,637 55 302.5 2015.7 68 244.7 1630.3 11 1512.5 9 1848.6Miami-Dade FL 376,264 40,012 NA NA NA 206 194.2 1826.5 65 615.6 23 1739.7Milwaukee WI 146,812 17,226 NA NA NA NA NA NA 112 153.8 61 282.4Montgomery Cty Sch AL 78533 16,406 140 117.2 561.0 101 162.4 777.6 30 546.9 13 1262.0Naperville 203 IL 17982 1978 27 73.3 666.0 29 68.2 620.1 4 494.5 3 659.3New Bedford MA 12,692 2,655 67 39.6 189.4 30 88.5 423.1 11 241.4 3 885.0Northern Valley RHSD NJ 2,303 410 3.7 110.8 622.4 3 136.7 767.7 NA NA NA NAOak Park Sch Dist 97 IL 3,803 614 10 61.4 380.3 NA NA NA 3.6 170.6 1.6 383.8N. Chicago (in Dist.) IL 5,400 875 12 72.9 450.0 8 109.4 675.0 7 125.0 1 875.0Oakland Unified SD CA 28,000 5,096 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAPittsburgh Pub Schools PA 33,312 5315 19 279.7 1753.3 30.8 172.6 1081.6 12 442.9 2 2657.5Portland Public Schools OR 46,596 6,513 10 651.3 4659.6 NA NA NA 20 325.7 9 723.7Prince William County Schools VA 90,930 9,148 4 2287.0 22732.5 NA NA NA 22 415.8 9 1016.4Providence RI 23,695 4460 35 127.4 677.0 NA NA NA 11.5 387.8 4.5 991.1Renton WA 14,343 2,108 0 NA NA 17 124.0 843.7 15 140.5 3 702.7Rockford Pub S IL 28,973 4,065 26 156.3 1114.3 32 127.0 905.4 12.5 325.2 4.5 903.3Round Rock TX 43,000 3,313 NA NA NA 1 3313.0 43000.0 10 331.3 3 1104.3San Diego Unified SD CA 132,500 16,300 NA NA NA 129 126.4 1027.1 40 407.5 10 1630.0Saugus MA 3,012 462 4 115.5 753.0 5 92.4 602.4 2 231.0 1 462.0Sch Dist of Philadelphia PA 168,181 33,686 NA NA NA 280 120.3 600.6 20 1684.3 20 1684.3Sharon Public Schools MA 3,755 540 2 270.0 1877.5 7 77.1 536.4 2.6 207.7 2.8 192.9Scottsdale AZ 26,544 2,891 NA NA NA 31 93.3 856.3 13.8 209.5 3.8 760.8Shelby County (Memphis) TN 114760 14556 66 220.5 1738.8 79 184.3 1452.7 29.22 498.2 12.84 1133.6St. Paul MN 38,086 7,152 92 77.7 414.0 33 216.7 1154.1 36 198.7 12 596.0Sun Prairie Area S Dist WI 6,656 697 8 87.1 832.0 1 697.0 6656.0 5 139.4 2 348.5Tacoma Pub Schl WA 32,412 3,894 NA NA NA 1.2 3245.0 27010.0 19 204.9 11 354.0Tucson Unified SD AZ 56,000 8,092 26 311.2 2153.8 53 152.7 1056.6 10 809.2 4 2023.0Washoe County Dist NV 63,310 8,551 NA NA NA 35 244.3 1808.9 12 712.6 7 1221.6Williamson Cty Schl TN 12,725 1688 19 88.8 669.7 7 241.1 1817.9 11 153.5 7 241.1West Aurora SD IL 30,942 4,093 NA NA NA 37 110.6 836.3 22 186.0 5 818.6Worcester MA 24,825 5,172 NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 431.0 5 1034.4

Averages 331.5 2768 328 2964 406.7 1017.8

Physical Therapy

Nu

mb

er Ratio To:

Nu

mb

er Ratio To:

Nu

mb

er

Nu

mb

er

Occupational TherapyNursing (School/RN, etc.)Ratios for Social Workers,

Nurses, OTs & PTs

Tota

l Stu

den

t En

rollm

ent

To

tal S

pec

ial E

d

Social Worker

State

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C

onsulting Group, Inc.

129

C. Survey Protocols

Special Education Survey for Parents of Students with D

isabilities PC

G Education has been contracted by Sharon Public Schools to conduct a review

of the district’s special education services. The purpose of this survey is to gather inform

ation about your experience with special education services in the district as a parent or guardian of a student w

ith an IEP in order to identify program

strengths and areas for improvem

ent. If you have more than one child receiving special education services, w

e would

appreciate the additional time necessary to com

plete a separate survey for EACH

of your children.

We expect it should take about 15 m

inutes to complete. Your answ

ers will be confidential and the results w

ill be summ

arized at the district level. Thank you for participating in this survey. Your com

ments and feedback are very im

portant! Section 1 – About Your C

hild 1.1. Please indicate the grade level your child is current enrolled:

□ PK □ K-2 □ 3-6 □ 7-8 □ 9-12

1.2. Is your child 14 year or older?* ( ) Yes ( ) N

o

1.3. Please select your child’s school?* ( ) The C

hildren’s Center

( ) Heights Elem

entary ( ) East Elem

entary School ( ) C

ottage Street School ( ) Sharon M

iddle School

1.4. Your child's primary disability type as identified on his/her IEP

( ) Autism

( ) Deaf-Blindness

( ) Developm

ental Delay (children aged tw

o through six years who have delays in physical, cognitive, com

municative, social em

otional, and/or adaptive developm

ent)

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


130

( ) Emotional D

isability (such as anxiety disorder, mood disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, or schizophrenia)

( ) Hearing Im

pairment (including D

eafness) ( ) Intellectual D

isability ( ) M

ultiple Disabilities (com

bination of any of the following: intellectual disability, orthopedic im

pairment, other health im

pairment or

autism, intellectual disability, deafness, etc.)

( ) Orthopedic Im

pairment (such as cerebral palsy, am

putations, and fractures or burns which cause stiffness or constriction)

( ) Other H

ealth Impairm

ent (such as ADD

/ADH

D, epilepsy, asthm

a, or diabetes) ( ) Specific Learning D

isability (such as dyslexia, information-processing problem

s, oral language difficulties, reading difficulties, written

language problems, or m

athematical disorders)

( ) Speech or Language impairm

ent ( ) Traum

atic Brain Injury ( ) Visual Im

pairment (including Blindness)

( ) Don’t Know

1.5 D

o you speak a language other than English at home?*

( ) Yes

( ) N

o 1.6

Did you child receive an IEP prior to enrolling in Sharon Public School?*

( ) Yes

( ) N

o Section 2 – Your Participation and Your Child’s IEP

Yes

No

Don’t

Know

N

ot Applicable

2.1 D

id SPS staff explain to you why your child needed special education services in a

way that you w

ere able to understand? ( )

( )

( )

2.2 At your child’s m

ost recent IEP meeting, did the team

discuss receiving special education services in the general education class to the m

aximum

extent appropriate?

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


131

2.3 To your know

ledge, is your child's IEP being implem

ented as written?

2.4 In the past year, have you attended parent training or inform

ation sessions offered by SPS?

2.5 If yes, w

as the parent training you attended helpful?

*Answ

er only if your child is 14 years or older

Yes N

o D

on’t K

now

2.6 H

as the team developed individualized goals related to postsecondary education, em

ployment, independent

living, and comm

unity participation, as appropriate?

2.7 D

id the IEP team discuss transition to adulthood during the IEP m

eeting, e.g., career interests?

2.8 D

o school staff actively encourage your child to participate in IEP meetings?

* If you speak a language other than English, please answer the questions below

. Yes

No

Don’t

Know

2.9 W

ere you asked if you would like to have an interpreter in IEP m

eetings to discuss your child’s special education needs and services?

○ ○

○

2.10 If you asked for an interpreter, w

as one provided at IEP meetings?

○ ○

○

2.11 Are the interpreter services provided at the IEP m

eeting effective—do they help you understand the inform

ation discussed?

Section 3 – Your Satisfaction with Your Participation and Your C

hild’s Services and Progress Please rate your level of agreem

ent with each of the follow

ing statements (Scale: Strongly Agree/Agree/D

isagree/Strongly Disagree)

Satisfaction with M

y Participation

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


132

Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

3.1 In planning m

y child’s most recent IEP, I felt I w

as a valued mem

ber of the IEP team

and my opinion w

as respected.

3.2 The inform

ation I provided about my child w

as considered when

planning and writing his/her m

ost recent IEP.

3.3 I understand w

hat is discussed at IEP meetings.

○ ○

○ ○

○

3.4 I feel com

fortable asking questions and expressing concerns at IEP m

eetings. ○

○ ○

○ ○

3.5 Teachers/school staff com

municate effectively w

ith me.

○ ○

○ ○

○

3.6 School staff respond to m

y concerns in a reasonable period of time.

○ ○

○ ○

○

3.7 I am

getting adequate information about m

y child’s performance.

○ ○

○ ○

○

3.8 M

y child’s progress report effectively comm

unicates positive progress and/or lack of progress.

○ ○

○ ○

○

Satisfaction with M

y Child’s Program

Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

3.9 I am

satisfied with m

y child’s overall special education services.

3.10 M

y child’s general education teachers are aware of m

y child's learning needs.

3.11 M

y child’s teachers have high expectations for my child.

○ ○

○ ○

○

3.12 I feel m

y child’s academic program

is preparing him/her effectively for the future.

○ ○

○ ○

○

3.13 Special education staff are skilled in providing the services and support m

y child needs.

○ ○

○ ○

○

Satisfaction with Your C

hild’s Participation and Progress

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


133

Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

3.14 I am

satisfied with m

y child’s overall academic progress in school.

3.15 M

y child has the opportunity to participate in school-sponsored activities such as assem

blies, field trips, clubs, and sporting events. ○

○ ○

○ ○

Section 4 – Additional Com

ments

4.1 Please list what you believe your child’s school(s) does w

ell in delivering special education services to students with disabilities. (250

characters)

4.2 Please list what you believe should be changed or be im

proved in the delivery of special education services in your child’s school(s). (250 characters)

4.3 Please share any additional thoughts relative to the District’s special education program

. (250 characters)

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


134

Sharon Public Schools Special Education – Staff Survey PC

G Education has been contracted by Sharon Public Schools to conduct a review

of the district’s special education services. The purpose of this survey is to gather inform

ation about your experience as a staff mem

ber in order to identify program strengths and areas for im

provement.

We expect it should take about 15 m

inutes to complete. Your answ

ers will be confidential. Thank you for participating in this survey. Your com

ments

and feedback are very important!

Section 1 – School Level/Population You Serve 1.5. W

hich one of the following best describes your position relative to special education services?

( ) Special Education Teacher

( ) General Education Teacher

( ) Related Service Provider (O

T, PT, Speech, etc.)

( ) Student Support Services (Social Worker, Psychologist, N

urse, Counselor)

( ) Instructional Assistant

( ) Other school-based staff m

ember: _______________

1.2 Please select the school(s) w

here you work.*

( ) The Children's C

enter

( ) Heights Elem

entary

( ) East Elementary School

( ) Cottage Street School

( ) Sharon Middle School

( ) Sharon High School

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


135

Section 2 – Pre-referral &

Eligibility Experiences (including triennial reevaluations) Please rate your level of agreem


ing statements. (Scale: Strongly Agree/Agree/D


Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

2.1 Before a student is referred for special education, every attem

pt is made to m

eet the student’s needs through general education interventions.

○ ○

○ ○

○

2.2 M

y school(s) uses the MTSS fram

ework w

ith fidelity. ○

○ ○

○ ○

2.3 Insufficient general education reading intervention support is a m

ajor reason for special education referrals in this school/district.

2.4 Insufficient general education m

ath intervention support is a major reason for special

education referrals in this school/district. ○

○ ○

○ ○

2.5 Insufficient general education positive behavior support is a m

ajor reason for special education referrals in this school/district.

○ ○

○ ○

○

2.6 Prior to a referral for special education, the im

pact of a child’s native language on academ

ic performance or behavior is considered.

○ ○

○ ○

○

Section 3 – IEP Process (including initial IEP development, annual review

s, and amendm

ents) Please rate your level of agreem




Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

3.1 I am

a valued mem

ber of the IEP team.

3.2 I feel com

fortable asking questions and expressing concerns at IEP meetings.

3.3 The IEP process involves general and special educators as partners w

hen m

aking recomm

endations. ○

○ ○

○ ○

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


136

3.4 IEP team

s discuss instruction and support in general education classes to the m

aximum

extent possible (LRE) in m

aking service recomm

endations for students w

ith disabilities.

○ ○

○ ○

○

3.5 IEP m

eetings are run efficiently and effectively, with enough tim

e for all parties to share and discuss all needed inform

ation, and to make decisions.

○ ○

○ ○

○

Section 4 – Service Delivery

Please rate your level of agreement w

ith each of the following statem

ents (Scale: Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly D

isagree/Don’t

Know or N

ot Applicable)

Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

4.1 The general education teaching staff have high expectations for students w

ith disabilities.

4.2 The special education teaching staff, including related service providers, have high expectations for students w

ith disabilities.

4.3 School adm

inistrators have high expectations for students with disabilities.

○ ○

○ ○

○

4.4 Students’ IEP progress on goals are docum

ented and reported to parents. ○

○ ○

○ ○

4.5 The special education program

/services at my school(s) are of high quality.

○ ○

○ ○

○

4.6 Students w

ith disabilities at my school(s) are offered a continuum

of services that m

eet their needs. ○

○ ○

○ ○

4.7 O

nce eligible for special education, the behavioral supports necessary to meet

individual student needs are available at my school(s).

○ ○

○ ○

○

4.8 Student progress tow

ard IEP goals is analyzed and discussed regularly.

4.9 Planning effective services and activities for post-secondary transition begins for students at age 14 at m

y school(s). -

4.10 Instructional Assistants at m

y school(s) are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students w

ith IEPs.

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


137

4.11 Special education teachers at m

y school are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students w

ith IEPs. ○

○ ○

○ ○

4.12 R

elated Service providers (OT, PT, Speech Therapists) at m

y school are used effectively to support the needs and progress of students w

ith IEPs.

Section 5 – Com

munication, C

ollaboration, and Parent Engagement

Please rate your level of agreement w

ith each of the following statem

ents (Scale: Strongly Agree/Agree/Disagree/Strongly D

isagree/Don’t

Know or N

ot Applicable)

Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

5.1 The adm

inistrators, including the principal, at my school(s) provides active

leadership for special education.

5.2 I receive the support I need from

the administration w

hen facing challenges related to teaching or serving students w

ith IEPs. ○

○ ○

○ ○

5.3 There is sufficient com

munication betw

een general and special educators about the needs and progress of students w

ith IEPs. ○

○ ○

○ ○

5.4 There is sufficient com

munication betw

een general/ special educators, and related services staff (O

Ts, Speech/Language, etc.) about the needs and progress of students w

ith IEPs.

○ ○

○ ○

○

5.5 Parents are given a m

eaningful opportunity to participate during IEP meetings to

discuss their child’s education needs and to make recom

mendations.

○ ○

○ ○

○

5.6 The school effectively responds to the needs and concerns of parents of children w

ith IEPs.

5.7 Students w

ith disabilities at my school(s) have the opportunity to participate in

school-sponsored activities such as assemblies, field trips, clubs, and sports.

○ ○

○ ○

○

5.8 Students w

ith disabilities at my school(s) are treated w

ith respect by school staff and students.

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


138

Section 6 – Professional Learning Please rate your level of agreem



isagree/Strongly Disagree/D

on’t Know

or Not Applicable)

Strongly Agree

Agree D

isagree Strongly D

isagree D

on’t Know

6.1 Professional learning offerings I have attended at SPS enable m

e to better support teaching/learning of students w

ith IEPs.

6.2 G

eneral education teachers need more Professional Learning

opportunities on strategies for providing students with disabilities

with instruction aligned w

ith the curriculum.

○ ○

○ ○

○

6.3 Special education teachers need m

ore Professional Learning opportunities on strategies for providing students w

ith disabilities w

ith instruction aligned with the curriculum

.

6.4 G

eneral education teachers need more Professional Learning

opportunities on strategies for addressing the social/emotional

needs of students with disabilities in their classes.

6.5 Special education teachers need m

ore Professional Learning opportunities on strategies for addressing the social/em

otional needs of students w

ith disabilities in their classes.

6.6 Paraprofessionals need m

ore Professional Learning opportunities on supporting students in general education classes.

○ ○

○ ○

○

6.7 Paraprofessionals need m

ore Professional Learning opportunities on supporting students in special education classes.

‘ Section 7 – Professional Learning 7.1 To w

hat extent would the follow

ing Professional Learning areas be most helpful to you in your current role

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


139

H

igh interest/ need

Moderate

interest/ need N

o interest/ not needed

Know

ledge of and skills to provide instruction in core academic areas (i.e.,

math, reading, w

riting) ○

○ ○

Differentiated Instruction

○ ○

○

Increasingly intensive reading interventions ○

○ ○

Increasingly intensive math interventions

○ ○

○

Positive behavior intervention and supports

○ ○

○

Multi-Tiered S

ystem of S

upports

Facilitating inclusion in general education ○

○ ○

Developing functional behavior assessm

ents (FBAs)

○ ○

○

Developing behavior intervention plans (BIPs)

○ ○

○

Teaching students with curriculum

aligned with alternate assessm

ents ○

○ ○

Specific disability inform

ation (e.g., autism, em

otional disturbance, etc.) ○

○ ○

Independent living skills ○

○ ○

Assistive technology

○ ○

○

Collaborating w

ith Instructional Assistants ○

○ ○

Federal, state, and district special education regulations ○

○ ○

Sharon P

ublic Schools

Special E

ducation Review

Public C


140

Postsecondary transition planning

○ ○

○

Using/analyzing data to inform

instruction ○

○ ○

Section 8 – Additional Com

ments

8.1 Please list what you believe your school(s) does w

ell in delivering special education services to students with disabilities. (250 characters)

8.2 Please list what you believe should be changed or be im

proved in the delivery of special education services in your school(s). (250 characters)

8.3 Please share any additional feedback related to the District’s special education program

. (250 characters)