Upload
tricia-moore
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Developed with input by district administrators and educators in reponse to the June special education report.
Citation preview
12/15/08 Page 1 of 12
Reynoldsburg Special Education Plan of Action
2008-09
In spring 2008, the Superintendent requested a review of Reynoldsburg’s special
education system along with reviews of various components of its educational system.
Site-based management has historically been a key component of Reynoldsburg’s
approach to providing education. The Superintendent sought feedback on the
effectiveness of this approach. Greg Maloney, a consultant with the Educational Service
Center of Franklin County, conducted the review.
Recommendations and observations were provided in four major areas:
• Relationship between RSD Central Office (CO) and the individual school
buildings;
• Performance of SWDs;
• Compliance with special education requirements; and,
• Efficiency of operations.
The priority areas for the 2008-09 are in the following areas as determined with input
from the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Director of Student Services,
Building Administrators, Psychologists, and others (e.g., Speech Therapists, Teachers):
1. Performance of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments (including
Alternate Assessment)
2. Allocation of Resources
3. Implementation of new State Operating Standards for Students with Disabilities
4. Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI)
5. Services for Students with Disabilities, including support for students with
Autism, students with behavior needs, alternate placements and least restrictive
environment
The subsequent pages outline a plan of action for each of the above areas.
For a complete copy of the Special Education System Review for Reynoldsburg City
Schools: Final Report submitted by Greg Maloney on June 2, 2008, contact Cathy
Bregar, 501-1036.
12/15/08 Page 2 of 12
#1 Performance of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments PLAN OF ACTION
Special Education Program Review, June 2008 (Excerpt)
SWDs did not meet AYP in the areas reading and math, while students demonstrating
LEP did not meet AYP in reading. In reviewing building level data, all but one of the
elementary schools were rated as Excellent. However, the results of SWDs were not
reported for these schools since the n size for SWDs was too low. The middle schools,
junior high school, and the high school did not meet AYP for SWDs, primarily for
reading. The gap between non-disabled students is striking; in 10th grade 97.1% of non-
disabled students demonstrated reading proficiency while only 57.4% of SWD did.
Significant gaps exist at all grade levels and in all subjects, and when the SWD results are
compared across the racial/ethnic subgroups and economically disadvantaged subgroup.
Expectations for SWDs (and other subgroups). Some respondents raised the issue of
reasonable academic expectations for SWDs. Some indicated that expectations for these
students were not high enough and they were not being challenged appropriately. Others
indicated that expectations were too high and, at least for some SWDs, unreasonable.
Some special education providers expressed confusion regarding whether they should be
focusing on teaching SWDs the curriculum or focusing on IEP goals. Similar concerns
regarding expectations were raised regarding students demonstrating LEP and students
identified as Gifted
Perception of Special Education as a Priority. Some respondents were concerned that
although the performance of SWDs is said to be a priority in RSD, some actions taken in
schools appear to conflict with this. In some buildings, according to respondents,
intervention specialists are sometimes used as substitutes for regular education teachers if
another substitute can not be found. Similarly, if an intervention specialist is out, a
substitute is sometimes not hired to replace this person. In either case, respondents
expressed concern that SWDs are not being served appropriately. Special education
personnel were also described as being “spread thin” due to caseloads and multiple
responsibilities. As mentioned earlier, concern that more district level analysis of the
factors contributing to the lower AYP performance of SWDs and students with LEP has
not occurred was expressed.
Two issues emerged related to statewide assessments. The first concerns the use of
accommodations for SWDs on statewide assessments. A high degree of variability was
reported among the schools. The need for greater consistency and standardization among
sites was frequently expressed.
The second concerns the Alternate Assessment (portfolio assessment for students with
significant cognitive disabilities). Currently, only RSD students enrolled in the Franklin
County MRDD program are apparently allowed to paRtIcipate per district policy. A
number of respondents believe this policy is too restrictive since they know students with
cognitive disabilities for whom they believe taking the Ohio Assessment Tests (OAT) is
12/15/08 Page 3 of 12
inappropriate. However, other respondents expressed concern that having students
paRTIcipate in the Alternate Assessment could lead to lowered expectations for SWDs.
This issue is closely aligned with the issue of what are appropriate expectations for
SWDs.
Goal
All staff will cooperatively work together to ensure that students with disabilities have
access to the general curriculum, instruction relative to needs identified on the IEP, and
appropriate assessments to measure performance.
Strategies
� Standing item on the weekly A-Team Agenda
� Teachers and Administrators trained to make appropriate decisions about type of
assessments for students with disabilities, i.e., OAT/OGT or Alternate Assessment
(September and October dates via the State School Improvement Team)
� Decisions about participation in alternate assessment made by the IEP team
� Teachers, when necessary, are trained to conduct alternate assessments (Building
administrators have chosen September and October dates via the State School
Improvement Team)
� Standards coordinators, school psychologists, building and district administrators will
be provided information on appropriate assessment accommodations for students with
disabilities
� Standards coordinators will work in conjunction with the assistant superintendent and
director of student services to support building administrators in monitoring
instruction and assessment for students with disabilities, including analyzing data to
determine gaps and strategies
� Building administrators will monitor the progress of students with disabilities,
specifically, as part of the agenda for meetings with groups/teams of teachers at
regularly scheduled intervals
� Building Teams are afforded the opportunity to visit schools where general education
and special education teachers work collaboratively to meet the needs of students
with disabilities
� TBD: How will the issue of determining appropriate expectations for students with
disabilities be addressed?
� TBD: How will staffing decisions made by building administrators (i.e., not hiring
substitutes for intervention specialists, or using intervention specialists as subs) be
addressed?
� TBD: Is there a need for special education staff from all schools to interact with each
other (purpose, method)?
� [Other as determined by committee]
Outcomes
� Every building has a teacher trained in alternate assessment
� Every building administrator attends an inservice on alternate assessment
12/15/08 Page 4 of 12
� All teachers, administrators, standards coordinators and psychologists are provided
information about allowable accommodations and modifications for assessment
� Each building will include a plan for improving the performance of students with
disabilities in the building CIP
� Teachers report that they are better prepared to meet the needs of students with
disabilities
� Quarterly progress update to Director of Student Services
� Building and district performance on state assessments—i.e., meeting AYP standards,
safe harbor and value added for students with disabilities
Lead: Dan Hoffman, Assistant Superintendent
Committee: The A-Team (Assistant Superintendent, Director of Student Services,
Director of Technology and Professional Development, Standards Coordinators), the
District Leadership Team (Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Central Office
Administrators, Building Principals) and REA representation.
Anne Baldwin
Chastity Bobst
Greta Clouse
Dee Martindale
Sue Martin
Dee McGlothlin
Cathy Bregar
Debbie Smith
All Building Administrators
Superintendent
12/15/08 Page 5 of 12
#2 Allocation of Resources for Students with Disabilities PLAN OF ACTION
Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt)
Resources. Respondents indicated they want to become more knowledgeable about how
resources are allocated in RSD, including federal special education funds which are
apparently used to pay for alternative placement tuition, personnel, and assistive
technology support. They also want support for sharing resources and grouping
purchases across sites, as well as the opportunity for discussing “what’s working” at other
buildings that they can utilize in their schools.
Goal
District and Building Administrators will have knowledge of sources and amounts of
fiscal resources that are available to provide special education services and will make
recommendations to the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and Director of
Student Services as to guiding principles (decision rules) for allocating resources for the
2009-2010 school year.
Strategies
• Examine and consider how cost sharing and bulk purchasing across the district could
result in significant savings
• Other [To be determined by the Committee]
Outcomes
� Committee report regarding sources of funds and current use of funds to District and
Building Leadership
� Quarterly progress update to Director of Student Services
� Recommendations for 2009-2010 to Director of Student Services by January 31, 2009
� [Others identified by Committee]
Co-Lead: Ted Frissora, Principal, and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student Services
Committee:
Mary Ann Burns
Toni Nijssen/Mitch Biederman
Dee McGlothlin
Janet Lewis
12/15/08 Page 6 of 12
#3 Implementation of new State Operating Standards for Students with
Disabilities PLAN OF ACTION
Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt)
In previous years, special education compliance focused on whether rules were followed
in identifying and serving SWDs. Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and
IDEA 04, this focus has changed significantly to one that now emphasizes whether
SWDs are experiencing academic success. SWDs are expected to receive evidence-based
interventions prior to referral and identification, IEP components are to be aligned with
the general curriculum, and schools/districts are held accountable for the academic
progress of these students. This is a major shift for many special education providers,
regular education staff, and parents. The centralized organizing framework will help
facilitate the transition to this paradigm across the district.
Special Education Quality Control. A sample of special education documents (i.e.
Evaluation Team Reports (ETRs), IEPs) from each school was reviewed. General themes
that emerged included
• Unclear guidelines for special education eligibility, paRticularly for the category of
learning disability;
• IEP Present Levels of Performances (PLEPS) did not connect the student’s disability
with its impact on the student’s performance on the general curriculum;
• IEP goals were very general, sometimes immeasurable, and not aligned to the
standards;
• Special education services were not specified in terms of frequency and duration;
• Testing accommodations did not match student’s IEP accommodations;
• Secondary Transition planning was limited.
…Currently, cumulative special education files are maintained at the schools, which then
send the ETRs and IEPs to the CO, which then contracts with a company to scan them
into an online database. The student services administrative assistant maintains a special
education roster that lists due dates for IEP reviews and re-evaluations, and sends
reminders to staff as the due dates approach. It does not appear that at the local or district
level a qualitative review of special education programming and documentation is
occurring. Some districts utilize a process in which these processes and documentation
are reviewed by qualified staff and the results used to guide professional development
activities.
12/15/08 Page 7 of 12
Goal
District staff will know the key changes in the rules and will have training and resources
to implement the standards effectively. District forms, procedures and policies will be
reviewed to ensure that they are in line with the new Operating Standards and the new
Special Education Guidance Document created by ODE. Special education staff and
building administrators will know how to download online resources including Special
Education Law and regulations, Operating Standards, the ODE Guidance Document and
District Guidelines.
Strategies
� Participation in regional and state training for new Operating Standards (September
2008)
� Ongoing communication to Building Administrators regarding new or revised
procedures/standards/requirements
� Revised district-wide forms, procedures and protocols created and provided on a
shared folder in the T drive
� TBD: How will the need for professional development/training be identified and
provided?
� [Other Determined by Committee]
Outcomes
� Quality control process implemented to determine effectiveness of program
implementation and establish needs/recommendations for 2009-2010
� Records review protocol established and a random review conducted to ensure that
documentation is in accordance with state and district requirements
� 504 Process updated and disseminated
� Quarterly progress update by committee to Director of Student Services
Co-Lead: Tammy Yockey, Assistant Principal and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student
Services
Committee
Kathy Litzinger, Psychologist
Leslie Kelly, Asst. Principal
Ann Ivinskas, Preschool Coordinator
Representative Speech Language Pathologist
Teacher (Elem, MS, JH, HS)
REA Representative
Darrell Propst, Elem Administrator
Other?
12/15/08 Page 8 of 12
#4 Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) PLAN OF ACTION
Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt)
Intervention Efforts. All schools have implemented an Individual Assistance Team
process. However, considerable variability exists in how these processes are conducted
including who participates on the teams, how the referral process to the teams works, the
forms and data collected from the process, and how interventions are selected and
implemented. Respondents in some buildings reported the IAT was an integral part of
identifying and meeting the needs of students, and even reducing the need for referrals,
while other respondents indicated that the IAT was simply a necessary step to getting a
student referred for special education services. Concern with the lack of follow-up was
frequently noted.
The implementation of the Response to Intervention (RTI) model across schools
demonstrates an even greater level variability. Some schools have developed and
implemented a tiered intervention model, while other schools are still considering
whether to implement it. According to the SST’s RTI Implementation Report produced
by the Region 11 State Support Team (SST), 5 schools attended RTI training and are
implementing, 2 schools attended but are not implementing, and 4 schools did not send
staff to the training. The report also indicates that 6 schools are using universal screeners
and tools to monitor student success. The process for choosing and evaluating evidence-
based practices is also not clearly defined.
Goal
Response to Intervention (RTI) will be a district-wide strategy, designed uniquely in each
building (using set criteria to guide the design), to provide a research-based tiered set of
intervention strategies to ensure that students’ instructional and behavioral needs are
identified early and met immediately.
Strategies
� Rubric developed for RTI used to create fidelity to the critical components of RTI and
to assess effectiveness of implementation
� Recommend District Team to Superintendent
� [To be determined by Committee]
Outcomes
� Quarterly progress update by committee to Director of Student Services
� Written plan for implementation at both the District and individual building level
� [Additional to be determined by Committee]
Lead: Chris Brooks, Assistant Principal and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student Services
Planning Committee:
� Building Principal (Elem)
12/15/08 Page 9 of 12
� Building Principal/Asst. Principal (MS)
� Building Principal/Asst. Principal (JH)
� Cathy Grover, Social Worker
� Jodi Greene, Guidance Counselor
� Joyce Rings, Guidance Counselor
� Joan Bellner, Psychologist
� Standards Coordinators
� Cindy Pennington, State Support Team Region 11 (consultation)
� Greg Matthews, State Support Team Region 11 (consultation)
� REA Rep
� Other?
12/15/08 Page 10 of 12
#5 Services for Students with Disabilities, including support for students
with Autism, students with behavior needs, alternate placements and
least restrictive environment PLAN OF ACTION
Special Education Review, June 2008 (Excerpt)
Schools demonstrate a variety of methods for addressing behavioral issues. At least two
schools have implemented a school-wide system of behavioral support, while some
schools do not appear to have implemented any system, other than their discipline policy.
Yet, staff in all schools report behavioral and disciplinary issues to be a primary concern
and one of the objectives listed under RSD Goal #3 is to “develop positive
behavior/discipline plans within each building. In reviewing the discipline records for
SWDs, one elementary school reported no suspensions while another school reported 11
different SWDs were suspended at least once. Although other factors may contribute to
this disparity, this raises the possibility that expectations differ across schools.
Finally, schools utilize different special education service models, with some using
resource rooms, some using an inclusive approach, and some using skill labs. Some
schools also assign intervention specialists by grade level which means that some may
have larger caseloads than others. One building utilizes a cross-categorical program that
includes students from two grade levels and four disability categories.
Continuum of Services for SWDs Demonstrating Behavioral/Intensive Needs.
Respondents expressed strong concern regarding RSD’s approach to serving SWDs
demonstrating significant behavioral issues, as well as other intensive needs. Previously,
behavioral units were created in the district to serve students with behavioral issues, but
they have been largely discontinued in favor of serving students in their local schools and
regular classrooms, possibly with paraprofessional support. If a student is unsuccessful
in this placement, the next option is an out of district placement such as Excel Academy.
Waggoner Road Junior High School maintains a cross-categorical program which
includes students in 7th and 8
th grades demonstrating a range of disabilities and intensive
needs. Of the 16 students reported to be in the program at the beginning of the year, 9
remain. Some transferred but some were apparently expelled.
Many staff are concerned that schools are not prepared to serve these students which
impacts not only students but also special education and regular education staff. It may
also be impacting the number of SWD suspended and expelled. Many respondents
expressed their desire for more intensive programming provided in the districts, or at
least more intensive support. This concern was shared at all levels and sites. From a
broader perspective, the most recent Primary Prevention Awareness Attitude & Use
Report (PPAUS) indicated that 16% of middle school students reported being called
names, disrespected, physically threatened or made to feel afraid online at least twice. At
the high school level, 15% reported fearing for their physical safety more than once in the
previous year. Clearly, behavior management is an important issue for RSD.
12/15/08 Page 11 of 12
The issue of providing appropriate services for SWDs demonstrating significant
behavioral issues is critical. One option is to provide a wider range of more restrictive
settings for students, including self-contained support. Although some indicated their
desire for this approach, others expressed concerns over whether students would receive
appropriate instructional support or simply be maintained in these classrooms. Another
option is to continue providing services in regular classrooms with intervention specialist
or paraprofessional support. Many respondents indicated this approach is not meeting the
needs of students, results in disruptions in the classroom that affects other students, and
when students are unsuccessful in this setting the next option seems to be an out of
district alternative placement. Not only is this an expensive step, it is also more
restrictive than a self-contained classroom since it is out of the district. A review of the
most recent Schools of Distinction Cross-Case Analysis indicates that these schools serve
most SWDs in the regular classroom, but with significant supports provided. Some also
indicated that students with more intensive needs are educated in pull-out or other
settings. The key for RSD is to determine the model the district can support that will
provide students the individualized services they require. It may be that a transition
process utilizing pull-out or self-contained services would be useful until the regular
education environment with support model becomes more viable.
Goal
A model for providing services for students with disabilities with significant behavioral
issues that the district can support will be developed.
Strategies
� New classroom for students on the Autism spectrum through FCESC
� FCESC support for Autism/Behavior class at WRMS
� Training will provided in crisis prevention/intervention and working with students
with behavioral challenges to safety/security specialists, teachers, paraprofessionals
and others as needed
� Procedures and protocols established for functional behavior analysis, behavior plans
and manifestation hearings
� Positive behavior supports will be addressed as part of the building RTI
implementation
Outcomes
� The full continuum of services will be available for students with significant
behavioral issues
� The district will have district staff as trainers for Crisis Prevention/crisis intervention
� Staff will have opportunities to learn more about serving students with
Autism/Asperger’s syndrome
� Quarterly progress update to Director of Student Services
� Functional behavior assessments and behavior plans developed for students with
significant behavior issues in accordance with district guidelines and protocols
� Reduction in discipline leading to manifestation hearings, out of school suspension,
recommendations for expulsion and expulsions
12/15/08 Page 12 of 12
� Reduced numbers of students with behavioral needs placed in programs outside the
district
Co-Leads: Valerie Maher, Principal, Doug Gillum, Director of Alternative Education
Programs and Cathy Bregar, Director of Student Services
Committee
� Cathy Grover, Social Worker
� Amy Gengo, Guidance Counselor
� Janet Lewis, REA Rep and HS Intervention Specialist (Elem, MS, JH)
� Ed Johnson, HS Building Administrator
� Tom Cochran, HS Asst. Principal
� Bob Stamps, Hearing Officer and Safe, Drug-Free Administrator
� Intervention Specialist (Elem, MS, JH)?
� Other?