SWOT Final

SWOT Analysis for the Springfield School District 186 Special

Education Department

June, 2011

Overview of the Process

An inquiry was made by the school district to determine if there was a qualified team willing to submit a proposal to conduct a SWOT analysis of the districts special education department. This inquiry came to the team in mid-March of 2011. The team leader

submitted a letter of interest to the district prior to the end of March.

The team leader was asked to participate in a conference call discussion on April 8, 2011. This discussion included representatives from a parent advisory group, the superintendent, director of special education, other district representatives and a former director of special education of the district. The team leader was asked about the general scope and sequence of the proposed SWOT analysis.

Shortly after this discussion the team submitted its formal proposal to be considered by the

district. After a delay from the originally projected board meeting of April 18 to its meeting of May 2d the board authorized the team from W E Thoman Inc. to conduct its

analysis.

The team had conducted some preliminary informal activities prior to the boards authorization but did not feel it had full authority to proceed with its activities until formally contracted to do so. Within three weeks of being contracted to conduct this assessment, the team had developed and disseminated interview instruments for the primary stakeholder groups in the district. The parent interviews were disseminated by mail to a random 5% of the parents whose children received special education services. The team also developed electronic survey forms for the special education service personnel, regular education teachers, administrative personnel and special education attendants.

The team directed the district to disseminate each of the survey links to all of the districts administrators, special education teachers, and special education attendants after each instrument was developed. Anticipating quite a large group of general educators, the team asked for a representative sample of general educators to be selected for participation in the survey. A request was made to have ten general education teachers from each building who had a student with an IEP in their classes participate in the survey.

It appears the district disseminated links to all four of the electronic surveys via the Reflector which is a recognized school district email communication medium. A slight concern on the part of the team was that all staff subscribing to the Reflector received all four survey links. While the links when submitted to the district were clearly identified as to the subgroup for which it was intended, ii was essentially up to the staff to select the appropriate link for their job category. If at least 44 of the special education attendants have

a Bachelors degree or higher then they could have completed the correct survey. If not, they

(All Rights Reserved - W E Thoman Inc. 2011)

could have been responding to the incorrect question group. At least one special education teacher commented that they had attempted the general education survey by mistake. Most other response comments appear consistent with the target respondent groups. The four electronic survey instruments were accessible for input beginning around May 20 thru

midnight of June I'm The parent surveys were distributed by the district also around May

20 and included self addressed stamped envelopes to be returned directly to the analysis team. The parent surveys have been received and incorporated into the analysis as recently

as June 22d

In addition to the electronic and mailed surveys, the team members spent between three and

four days directly on site making visits to each school building. The team was in the district conducting interviews on May 23 d 26 and 31'td also on June l std 2nd vse e

conducted randomly selected interviews of over 125 special and general education staff in those visits to the school buildings. The team also interviewed over 25 representative related services personnel, case managers, supervisors and 15 parents identified by the district and parent advisory group. Each of the surveys disseminated included a voluntary contact me section. If the survey respondent indicated they wished to be contacted, a team member attempted to make those contacts as the surveys were being analyzed. The team reviewed the districts special education profile data compiled by the Illinois State Board of Education. The team also conducted cursory reviews of representative student files and the districts proportionate share plan with its area private and parochial schools.

(All Rights Reserved W E Thoman Inc. 2011)

The Evaluators

William Thoman

Mr. Thoman has had over 35 years of direct experience in Illinois Special Education. He has been a special education teacher, department chair, supervisor, assistant director and state approved director. As state approved director he has served Aurora East District 131 and Mid-Valley Special Education Cooperative in St. Charles, Illinois.

Mr. Thomans certifications include elementary education, special education LBS I with endorsements in learning disabilities, mental retardation and emotional disturbance. He has secured an approval from ISBE as a prevocational coordinator and has both a masters degree in Learning Disabilities as well as a Type 75 administrative certificate.

From 1986 to 1997 he was on the Illinois Registry of Level I Due Process Hearing Officers. He has served as a peer monitor on an ISBE focused monitoring visit. Since his retirement from full time employment in 2007 he has consulted with several school districts in Illinois as well as providing service to two charter schools in Chicago. In addition to attending Springfield Public Schools through his sophomore year in high school he had a very productive consultation role with the district in the spring of 2002 which resulted in an increase of State reimbursement to the District of almost $1 million dollars a year. He currently resides with his family in Plainfield, Illinois.

LarHyde

Mr. Hyde has had 31 years experience as a principal and administrator in Illinois Schools. He was a principal and special education supervisor in the small rural district of Carrier Mills-Sionefort for 11 years. He was also principal and special education supervisor in Marion for 15 years and a principal of an elementary school in suburban St. Charles for 5 years.

He is a certified mentor in the Illinois New Principal Mentoring Program and has successfully mentored ten principals. In addition, He has been a curriculum consultant for the St. George CCSD 258 and is responsible for writing and implementing all grants and programs. Last year he was responsible for providing the leadership in developing a strategic plan for the district.

In 2007 and 2008 he completed the executive leadership program of the National Institute of School Leadership and is certified as a trainer of trainers.

Patricia Cline Conway

Ms. Conway began administrative responsibilities in 1980 after teaching in both elementary classrooms and various special education programs. Her range of

(All RightS Reserved W E Thoman Inc. 2011)

administrative duties includes supervisor, principal, and assistant director of special education for a multi-county cooperative. Her experience with the education system in Illinois currently spans 38 years.

Elementary education, special education LBS1 with endorsements in learning disabilities, social/emotional disabilities and mental retardation are certifications for Ms. Conway. In addition she earned approval as a teacher coordinator and pre-vocational coordinator, as well as a masters degree in Learning Disabilities and a Type 75 administrative

certificate.

Ms. Conway has served on numerous ISBE task forces and committees. She has extensive experience in developing plans for professional growth and the facilitation and implementation of the specific components. In addition, for more than fifteen years she has been a highly regarded professional development presenter and trainer throughout the state for districts, cooperatives, educational organizations and major conferences.

Following retirement she has continued to provide training, coaching, and consultation with districts. Her administrator academy trainings incorporate enhancement of regular and special education collaboration and cooperation. (Ex: This week Ms. Conway was co-presenter with Esq. Jay marring of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn for the Illinois Principal Association on the topic Making Special Education Law Functional.)


Special Education Personnel Stakeholder Analysis

Of the 375 prospective respondents there were 252 actual respondents. This represents a 67% participation rate. This is an indication of the degree of interest respondents have in a topic. This participation rate is quite high for anonymous on line surveys.

The overall topical question asked attempted to gauge special education staff satisfaction with the services being provided. Almost 64% were satisfied or very satisfied. Only 6% indicated a level of dissatisfaction. This trend continues in the subsequent questions with 73% feeling they have adequate tools and technology to do their job, 92.3% understanding the eligibility process, 93.5% feeling the IEP team discussions were relevant to the needs of their students, 91.7% feel their voices are heard and valued in IEP meetings, 68.2% felt that parents were active participants in the IEP process, 67.6 % felt adequate communication with general education staff occurs for those children in regular education classes, and 84.4% feel they know who to ask if they have a question about special education. Almost 68% feel the professional development they have received has been effective and increased their ability to work with students. Only 56.5% of the respondents feel the RtI process is clearly understood and followed in their schools.

The survey instrument allowed for open ended responses to most of the survey items. In total in just this one subgroup there were over 700 comments. While the survey results for this subgroup are resoundingly positive the number of open com.ments is also noteworthy. All except for perhaps a percent or two of the responses were clearly intended to convey recommendations for improvement. About 10 percent of the comments affirmed aspects of the overall ratings provided by the respondent i.e. Things are good. Another 10 percent of the comments pertained directly to wishing to have an electronic IEP system and in general other more up to date technology. There were over 40 comments that presented arguments about the discrepant services and practices between buildings and the overall impact on special education service delivery as a whole particularly as it relates to least restrictive environment concerns. Specific comments asserted that at some buildings without a self contained option for children within its attendance boundaries, there is a heightened awareness of what may be required to cause a child with an IEP to have to be moved to another building in the district that has the program service option. Conversely, in buildings with a self contained programs, there are barriers to having children placed in more regular classes if that becomes appropriate because, if they have become stable enough to function in a general education class for a portion of their day due to the minutes on their IEPs they may no longer be eligible to remain at the instructional program school and thus have their entire placement and service delivery disrupted.

Of the 67 comments on the question about professional development 65 of the comments (including 10 from the specific changes question) talk about wanting more special education specific professional development activities.

Of the 70 comments regarding parent participation in the IEP process, 35 clearly state that parents do not come. An additional 20 comments state that parent participation depends on a variety of factors including parent and teacher communication beforehand. Some comments

All Rights Reserved - W E Thoman Inc. 2011

alluded to a lack of parent understanding about the IEP process, that parents came when students led or had a role in their IEP meetings, and that if the family received a copy of the IEP document at the end of the meeting it would increase its perceived relevance to the family.

Of the 60 comments about the districts RtI process and it being understood in the schools, 20 respondents reported that it was understood but was inadequate and another 20 stated tha. it was not understood in the buildings. A number of the questions also identified that the

bulk of the RtI responsibility fell upon special education staff to implement the targeted interventions and that it took much too long to go through the process when it was obvious the child needed an evaluation to determine if a disability requiring special education services existed.

The final motif delineable within this sub group is one of communication and leadership. Approximately 65 comments pertained to some aspect of difficulty in communication between central office and building instructional staff. Comments on this topic range from global comments asserting an improvement in leadership and communication is needed to suggestions there is some active avoidance occurring when difficult issues anse.

Changes in law and resultant expectations are asserted to be not communicated in a thoughtful and planned manner. There were comments made in the process that a procedural manual for basic departmental practices does not exist and is not communicated. With a lack of communication on timely issues, one respondent maintains, special education service delivery becomes reactive rather than proactive.


Parents of Children With Disabilities Stakeholder Analysis

There were 157 survey forms and self addressed stamped envelopes mailed to parents of children currently receiving special education services. This sample was obtained randomly at the direction of the SWOT team by selecting every 20 name from the districts overall list of active students from the database used to report to ISBE (IEPoint). The survey forms, envelopes, and cover letter for each survey from the team were shipped to the district on

May 17th It is the teams understanding that these were mailed out to parents on the 20

with an added note encouraging parental participation from the superintendent. There was a cutoff date of June I on the electronic surveys for the other stakeholder groups. There was

no such cutoff date for the parent survey. In fact, the final mailed survey form was received by the team on June 22d As of this date, 30 surveys have been returned. This represents a

19% return rate, which is perhaps a bit low for this type of survey for the stakeholder group having arguably the greatest interest in the process.

In addition to the randomly selected survey participants, there is an active parent group in

the area that meets regularly and often seeks to provide input to the district on its current and future potential practices. At least 13 parent representatives from this group were

interviewed with an additional number of other parents selected by the district to participate

in the interview process.

With some exception, there is a fairly complete dichotomy between the information received from the randomly selected parental survey participants and that received through the parental interviews. Considering the general level of satisfaction with the districts special education services, 86.7% of the respondents (26) rated this as very satisfied or satisfied.

Contrast this with an approximate 90% indicating that they were either slightly satisfied or not satisfied with the special education services in the district. One parental representative was not able to comment when the interviewer asked What works well within the district regarding special education services?

The only question that random survey respondents indicated less than a 90% agreement level on was the question about their awareness of RtI process. That percentage was 64.3% for agreeing or somewhat agreeing. The parents interviewed who were asked about that process in the schools indicated an almost opposite response with a 67% rating of disagreeing that the process was understood and followed in the schools. The remaining portion of parents interviewed were unsure.

The preponderant difference of written comments between those who participated in the survey and those who were interviewed is severe. They will be summarized separately for purposes of this report.

There were over 50 written comments provided by the parents of the randomly selected survey. A summary is being provided here:

2.

4.

6.

9.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

When my daughter was at X school she was doing better. Now at Y school and

not doing as well.

Blessed with a great team of people, having a passionate k-2 teacher.

In the last five years the district has come a long way in helping children with ADHD, behavior problems, and learning disabilities. I cant think of a word good enough to describe the resource teachers I have worked with for the past 2-3 years. The more parents are willing to cooperate with the school, the more help they will get. Parents have more power than they think. Schools and parents are working together more and more all the time and this only befits the students.

Son has received services since age 4. Very appreciate of the services. This short survey not able to capture all the good things the district has done for him.

Very satisfied with those working directly with our children. Unsatisfied with those in higher positions ultimately making decisions based on purchases of equipment. Staff is professional, caring, knowledgeable and compassionate each time.

Very good program. You are doing a GREAT job!

My daughter has made a huge improvement in her speech and is more confident

in herself.

Teachers are wonderful; however the duplication of paperwork (3 notices for meetings) seem an unnecessary expense. Should be used for more classroom materials.

We have been receiving SL services since my son was 2 'Zi. The specialist always helped us as parents find ways to better help our son.

I feel the teams do the best they can with special education students with all the programs they have.

I dont remember what RtI is and even though it takes less time to spell out the initials of programs there are too many of them used. I have a grandson who was evaluated and found not eligible for learning disabilities yet he is 2 years below grade level in reading. He was found eligible for Other Health Services. The eligibility process should be looked at. 25 years ago my daughter had problems in reading. The district had her tested and she was sent to a special reading class. They didnt wait for me to ask for help they just did it. Thats the way it should be for all kids.

There is a limited amount of time at IEP meetings since case managers are so busy but 30 minutes or even an hour may not be enough.

Staff at IEP meetings are knowledgeable, willing and supportive but they are not always allowed to make final decisions and arent able to get and give information from those who do make the decisions. The breakdown appears to be between those running the meeting and their supervisors or superiors.

When a parent or guardian call to talk with a teacher why wouldnt they return

the call?

I feel certain schools in the district are real good at what they do and they make their students progress.

Staff unable to give specific answers to important questions. When they ask from higher up in the dept. they still do not get a definite answer.


17. Dont make any changes! My little cousin went from making all Fs to the honor roll. I am very proud of him!

18. I am pleased with my childs improvement thus far. I cant wait til next year.

19. Need more homework.

20. No changes, you are doing great.

21. Always room for improvement, but the program is an effective one for me and my family as it is.

22. Would like to see an increase in the amount of time with the SLP.

23. Time allowed for IEP meetings is too short. Everyone feels rushed. Times are assigned and often not convenient for parent.

24. Our experience has been wonderful. The teams over the years have been great. Some hiccups of course. Some concerns regarding the OT my child is receiving. District needs to invest more into OT team.

25. Parents should be educated about what is going on in the classrooms. Teachers and parents should communicate more. Parents need to know they can ask for help if they are not satisfied with their childs progress.

26. All personnel have been supportive throughout our sons education. Thanks!

27. Communication device agreed upon by entire team but no answer if district will purchase equipment. Last year we as parents, purchased a device when given no answer. This years meeting we were told the purchased device was not enough for the regular classroom but two staff members had to excuse themselves to get an answer in regards to the purchase. Experienced this multiple times with those who are in authority to make these decisions.

28. Having the parent have no opportunity to see written reports before hand or during the meeting is not family friendly. Too much time spent on deficit areas as opposed to strengths. Discouraging to most parents with involved children.

29. Need more lifeskills classes.

30. Initial screening process a bit unprofessional. Staff arrived late and were unapologetic about their tardiness. Improved once the actual teachers were there.

31. Pleased with the ELC!

The following is a summary of comments the team obtained from the 13 parent representatives interviewed during the on site visit.

1. There is a culture of resistance in the district and much incompetency. They are reverting back to a cookie cutter type plan rather than an individualistic plan. There is a lack of understanding ofExecutive Functioning and Language Processing issues.

2. I fought this district for years to get him services. The district wouldnt acknowledge problems until the behaviors became significant.

3. Pleasantly surprised at the inclusion services. My child is dyslexic and I experienced difficult IEP meetings. They use SRA for all students. Not willing to discuss other options even if parents are trained in Lindamood-Bell and Orton- Gillingham.

4.

6.

7.

8.

9

12.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

I had provided three letters of recommendation for my child to use a multisensory strategic approach for my childs reading disability. Both parents

and the resource teacher had agreed to this approach. It seems that a decision was made beforehand different than our recommendation. There is possibly a misunderstanding of laws, rules, and regulation of special education.

They have a pre-meeting before the parent is invited to the IEP meeting. The parents feel left out because the parent can see the others meeting. The IEP discussions are often on what works best for the school rather than what the student needs.

Goals are not measurable. They are not SMART goals. Lack of knowledge about Tier 3 students. The ESY eligibility criteria or procedure is unknown to parents. Provide Orton-Gillingham services and programming for dyslexia. The district should employ an appropriate assistive technology specialist. Use SMART goal guidelines. Replace elementary and special Ed. supervisors and case managers. When district recommended instructional strategies were questioned, sufficient research was not provided to the parent.

District should emphasize early identification and intervention. Increase professional development for regular and special teachers on how to support children with disabilities.

Make sure all teachers are aware of children with 504 plans and IEPs. Give stronger weight and/or consideration to outside evaluations.

Assign personnel based on numbers of minutes needed to support IEP students rather than just numbers of students. Hire an assistive technology specialist.

Case managers need to be more connected to the needs of the students and staff of each school. Emphasize early intervention and identification.

When discussing a report at a meeting, parents should be given a copy of the report as it is being discussed. They have to ask for it without fail.

District let unresolved dispute over reading difficulties fester over a multi year period. A child had severe dyslexia and the psychologist stated they did not know the remediation for that.

Parents often have to purchase the assistive tech devices for use at school. The device was programmed at school and kept at school on the weekends but was purchased by the parent.

Supervisors appear to be there to intimidate the parents.

Were not allowed to consider putting transition transportation on the IEP. Case manager said she had to ask the supervisor.

Parents wont get a copy of the IEP unless they ask for it at the beginning of the

meeting.

ESY not given due consideration.

Services in the neighborhood schools not a priority. Project Choices not brought in.

Attendant should be part of the meeting if child gets that service to allow direct communication with the IEP team on how to deliver services.

I feel valued at IEP meetings. Legitimate communication and discussion occurs there.


22.

25.

26.

27.

28.

No ESY on the IEP but I talked with the teacher, then he was allowed to go to

ESY.

Child eligible last year but no openings at ELC. Now with an amazing teacher. Springfield Parents for Students with Disabilities group provides three annual seminars to help parents with autism IEP development. Parents not aware of what their children need.

Superintendent has embraced parent group with parents advocating for their children. When this happens, program development is easier. The goal is to get everyone to work together.

An October IEP meeting fell apart because the team didnt know how to write a

Unhappy with attitude about ESY. It was not discussed. We heard another parent talking about it and inquired about the particulars.

The case manager disengaged psychologically from the report of the private tutor. The meeting did end with child getting ESY and an increase in reading minutes.

The data suggests that there are issues in the district that parents are directly concerned about. There appears to be a generally supportive mood with, as one parent put it, some hiccups along the way. The randomly selected group of survey parents expressed a vastly supportive feeling with some exceptions. Exceptions that they as parents, feel deserve legitimate attention. The interview comments from the parents primarily from the parent group in the district reflect a series of legitimate concerns also. Their comments reflect concerns, this team surmises, that have been expressed to the district and have not been

satisfactorily addressed or resolved. They then are a focused concern group. There is nothing invalid about the concerns expressed, but in large part those concerns are why they have banded together into a parent support group. It is a set of reasons not dissimilar

in purpose to those of any politically motivated set of change agents.

This being said, one must make some general assumptions about the motivations of an organization such as a school district. Its purpose is to serve children and their parents and guardians. The community of a school district elects the school board members who hire the superintendent who hires the other administrators and staff to perform those functions in the manner articulated by the policy and preferences of the school board.

In almost any foreseeable scenario, a goal of the school district would be to attend to legitimate issues and acknowledge and defend concerns not able to be addressed by the district and proceed with the remaining work of the district. The commonality of issues presented by this stakeholder group and thematic recurrence of those issues indicates that there are matters in this regard that have not been sufficiently addressed within the organization. There is work to be done.

General Education Personnel Stakeholder Analysis

There are by report 912 general education teachers within the district. Responding to the electronic survey were 304 or precisely one third of the personnel. There were almost 750 comments posted to the electronic survey for this stakeholder group. A higher portion of the comments were those that were critical of current practices within the special education department as over half of the respondents (56%) were either only slightly satisfied or not satisfied with special education services within the district. A full third of all the comments made by the respondents to this general educator survey instrument responded to the questions of being satisfied with the special education services in the district and the prompt to provide a delineation of the specific changes that the respondent would suggest to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the services.

Given the diversity of the responses an exact summary of those responses are being

provided under the General Education Personnel Data section with responses being redacted when specific personnel references are being made or where responses may reveal the identity of the respondent.

Whereas 82.5% of staff responded that they are aware of their role in supporting a child with an IEP in their class, approximately half the comments related to this question reveal some dissatisfaction with their role, either not getting a copy of the IEP, their opinion not being valued, or a clarity of responsibilities being needed. Almost half the respondents report not being given adequate information for the IEP students that they instruct.

Regarding having sufficient tools and technology to support students with an IEP, 53.7 % of the respondents felt they had adequate support but 25 of the respondents felt either there were insufficient personnel to help support these needs or no training for the needed supports.

While most respondents (58.7%) understood the evaluation process a preponderance of the comments on this topic indicated the process took too long and had too many barriers.

There were 59.2% of respondents stating that they felt parents were active in the IEP process. Comments on this survey question included over 35 reflecting that they felt parents were not taken seriously, were talked down to, or that parents just didnt participate.

There was a predominant feeling among respondents about the RtI process. The RtI process is a general education process yet almost 50% of the respondents either disagreed or were unsure if it was clearly understood in their schools. This 50/50 split may accurately reflect what exists in the buildings as it is apparent that some buildings have done an admirable job of implementing RtI interventions and other buildings are very lacking in that regard.


Administrator Stakeholder Analysis

54 school administrators took this survey. 27 (51%) respondents identified themselves as school principals. The respondents were a fairly experienced group with 41% having 11 or more years of experience, 33% with 5-10 years of experience, and 26% with 1-4 years. In addition, there was a balanced representation from the Pre-School through grade 12 grade levels. 81% indicated that they supervise special education personnel and 87% participate in student IEP meetings

The following is a synopsis of the survey questions and accompanying comments.

QMeStiOt 1: How satisfied are you with Springfield 186 special education services? 63% Were very

satisfied or satisfied. 16% were not satisfied.

13 comments: Most positive comments reflected on the wonderful teachers and staff that support special education students. There were several comments that indicated a lack of communication and support from the central office administr4ators and the school buildings. A couple of comments mentioned the perceived lack of accountability of sp. Ed. Travel staff. In addition, there was a comment on how positive the development of Problem Solving Teams has been and a general lack of understanding of special education by regular educators.

Question 2: I understand our process to identify students eligible for special education services. 98%

strongly agree or agree to this statement.

3 comments: Comments were all positive.

Question 3: The IEP team discussions are relevant to the learning needs of the IEP students. 98%

strongly agree or agree to the statement.

3 comments: One comments expressed a desire to have more push-in services rather than "pull-out services".

Question 4' My voice is heard and valued in IEP discussions. 96% strongly agree or agree to this

statement.

2 Comments; All were positive in nature.

Question 5: Parents are active participants in the IEP process. 96% strongly agree or agree to

the statement.


9 Comments: All comments indicated a concern about the parent population. 5 comments stated that parents did not attend meetings or were not involved.4 comments indicated that parents do not understand or have the background to understand the special education process.

Question 6: The Rtl process is clearly understood and followed in mv school(s). 78% strongly agree

or agree to this statement. This indicated less confidence on this issue than others.

13 comments: 4 comments reported a need for more professional development on Rtl, two comments indicated a need for more staff to implement Rtl, and 2 comments stated that their individual schools were doing a good job in their Rtl efforts.

QueStiOFt 7' Adequate communication occurs between regular education teachers and special education teachers that is relevant to meeting the needs of IEP students. 79% strongly agree or agree to this statement. Once again, less confidence indicated for this statement.

10 Comments: 4 comments reported that there was not enough time allocated for this communication to occur between regular education teachers and special education teachers One other comment reflected upon the lack of communication with sp. ed.; supervisors.

Question 8: lf I have a question about special education, I know who to ask to receive a sufficient

answer to my question. 96% strongly agree or agree.

3 comments: Two comments were positive and one comment reported a time lag in receiving a response.

Question 9: Adequate data are presented and considered in IEP meetings to support individual student decisions in these areas. Although all topics received a majority agreement, data to support an extended school year" was the weakest with 42% indicated slight disagreement, disagreement, or unsure.

3 comments: One comment stated that it was case manager dependent and another

comment was that data presented is not always adequate.

Question 10: Please rank the following special education topics in regard to their relevancy and effectiveness in meeting the needs of students in Springfield Public Schoi . The strongest agreement was with the identification (eligibility) process and annual review (IEP)

meetings. Conversely, on the ineffective and irrelevant side was Parental Involvement

at 23% Communication at 21% irrelevant and ineffective.

6 Comments: Mixed responses with no clear message.


Question 11: In order to improve student learner outcomes, please rank the following topics in importance. You may choose only one response for each column. Of the topics offered, two were significantly higher than the others. They were (1) Provide adequate resources for IEP students in regular education environment and (2) provide adequate and appropriate special education classrooms and facilities to meet the needs of these diverse learners.

8 Comments; All comments reported the difficulty in to rank such important topics.

Question 1 2: In your opinion, what specific change(s) would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of special education services in our district? This is an open ended question designed to elicit original responses.

27 comments: 6 comments indicated a need for more timely communication and decision making from central office sp. ed. Staff. 4 comments suggested more professional development for regular education staff in regard to special education issues. 3 comments requested more time be provided for collaboration. 2 comments specifically indicated a need for additional LBS 1 teachers so that students can receive needed services within their own school. Other noteworthy comments were: more adaptive technology; more data-driven decision making; more accountability for itinerant staff; less sp. ed. Attendants; and more qualified teachers that are effective and competent


Special Education Attendant Stakeholder Analysis

87 special education attendants took this survey. However, it is not clear how many of these 87 respondents were actually attendants. There is clear evidence that some of the respondents were certified teachers that mistakenly took the attendant survey. It appears that this is a small number. The teacher comments were not included in the synopsis.

50% of the respondents work in a special education classroom, 21% are assigned to support an individual student... The respondents have varied experience with 42% having 1 to 4 years of experience, 26% with 5-10 years of experience, and 32% with 11 or more years. 56% of the survey respondents indicated that they have a bachelors degree or higher. 23% have work keys or 60 or more hours of college. While only 21% have less than 60 college hours of credit. It is interesting to note that while all grade levels are represented by the respondents, almost half (49%) were in grades 3-5.

The following is a synopsis of the survey questions and accompanying comments.

Question 1: How satisfied are you with Springfield 186 special education services? 80% WeFe Very

satisfied or satisfied. 10% were not satisfied.

12 comments: Most positive comments reflected on the wonderful teachers and staff that support special education students and the opportunity to work with children. There were a couple of comments that indicated attendants should be paid more. Another stated that more communication is needed between special education staff and regular education staff. Another respondent prefers more flexibility, not just one-on-one support but also to support other students as well.

Question 2: I receive adequate information, training and resources to support one or more students with an IEP. 58% strongly agree or agree tO this statement. However, 39% slightly disagree or disagree to this statement.

18 comments: Some comments were all positive. Five comments strongly stated that no training has been provided. Two comments indicated that attendants are not included in IEP meetings.

QMeStiOl 3' The professional development experiences that I have participated in have been effective

and have expanded my capacity to improve student learner outcomes. 63% strongly agree or agree

to the statement while 34% slightly disagree or disagree.

18 comments: Comments were varied with 2 comments stating the training was not relevant to their position. Another two comments indicated that they had not received or were offered any training.


Question 4: The last time I participated in a professional development activity was... 80% responded

that they had received training during the past two semesters.

There was not a comment feature for this question.

Question 5: Regarding communication with parents about the progress of their child(ren), please tell us about your role (if any) in that communication

39% report that they occasionally communicate with parents. 21% rarely communicate with parents. 16% were told that it is not their responsibility to communicate with parents.

10 Comments: 7 comments indicated that they communicate regularly with parents (daily or weekly). One comments stated that she was told not to communicate with parents.

QLIeStiOI3 6: Special Education personnel find themselves in contact with many children throughout the day. Please respond about your understanding of your role in the classroom. 75% respond willingly to questions from all students. 15% will help students/groups as directed by the teacher.

16 comments: Comments were varied and situational to the specific assignment.

QMeStiOt 7: My voice is heard and valued in IEP planning/discussions. 46% strongly agree or

agree to this statement. 51% slightly disagreed, disagreed, or did not participate in an IEP meeting.

There was not a comment feature for this question.

Question 8: I have adequate opportunities for communication with regular education and/or special

education teachers and personnel that is relevant to my meeting the needs of IEP students Isupport..

74% strongly agree or agree. 22% slightly disagreed or disagreed.

6 comments: All comments stated that they were not allowed to participate.

Question 9: lf I have a question about special education, Iknow who to ask to receive a sufficient

answer to my question. 80% agreed or slightly agreed.

10 comments: Four comments stated that they had received a timely response. Two comments indicated that sp. ed. administrators were rarely available nor do they respond.

QUeStlOR 10' In your opinion, what specific change(s) would improve the efficiency and effectiveness

of special education services in our district?

43 comments: 11 comments suggested that the district provide more and better professional development training. 7 comments stated that attendants should be invited

to IEP meetings and provide information. 6 comments centered on the issue that there should be greater/better collaboration between special education and regular education. 3 comments suggested higher pay for attendants. A couple of notable comments were: provide cross cat classes in all grades in all schools. Lack of communication from sp. ed. Administrators (do not respond to emails).


IEP Document Review

The team reviewed a range of IEP student files in order to form an opinion about the general process in place for completing those documents that identify eligibility and needs for special education services for its students. While it is nearly impossible for any student file to be 100% compliant with the incorporation of needed components, a predominant compliance with those statutory expectations is expected.

The teams review found a generally well organized and inclusive set of documents. A review of the goals and objectives for the students showed a marked inconsistency in relating the goals to state learning standards. Approximately 50% of the IEP files reviewed contained goals not stating the relevant state learning standard. While this is not necessarily a fatal flaw in the process, it does imply consistency with criticism made by stakeholder groups of the districts process as not being in compliance with the SMART goal standard.

In a minority of files the parent concerns section was also blank. Even if the parent is not in attendance some participation or preference should be solicited for input. Both of the above examples are extremely difficult to monitor for compliance in a file system that must be checked manually for each IEP to determine compliance with statutory compliance.

Commercial or locally developed web based products are readily available that do provide that heightened monitoring capability for compliance with critical statutory expectations for IEP documents.

Proportional Share Plan Review for Children With Disabilities in Private/Parochial Settings

The district provided the team with information relative to its development of a service plan for the many private and parochial schools within its boundaries. The district employs specific staff to provide those services to the parochial schools. Those salaries are delineated as expenses committed to the provision of those proportional share services.

Through the interview and review process the team learned that service staff employed for the purpose of providing services to private/parochial students do not begin their services to those sites until mid October and terminate the services by early May. It is the expectation put on school districts by the Illinois State Board of Education that timely and meaningful consultation about those services occur prior to November 1 of each year. The district certainly complies with that expectation. What is not clear is if the district is prohibited from providing services earlier than this time each fall if staff designated to provide the services have already been employed and are being paid to provide this service.

There are a variety of legitimate costs that can go into supporting private and parochial services including a portion of supervisory and administrative time. There are also a variance of techniques to derive the expenditure of the required funds for this category of services. The district uses a straight forward technique of direct employment of staff to provide this service. Another method would be to derive an hourly or per minute rate for services provided to students district-wide and then to track the time that service is actually provided. Transportation costs incurred that are required for the provision of these services are sometimes included in the service plan.

If the district relies upon expending the required funds for staff with 100% of their salary allocated for providing private/parochial service and if that staff provide some direct student services within district programs (before Oct 15 and after early May) it may be problematic in documenting that the required commitment of resources to this population have been made.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Delineation for Springfield District 186 Special Education Department

Strengths

All members of the District 186 staff, administration, and parents were open, honest and engaged in the interviews, observations, and meetings involved in the development of this report.

There are a wide range of services, supports and resources being provided for special education students throughout the district.

Some of the schools have a depth of understanding and are properly implementing the RtI model of interventions and supports.

A vast majority of the stakeholders surveyed and interviewed are expressing a core satisfaction with the special education services within the district.

Throughout the stakeholder groups is a preponderant feeling that the special education teachers and staff are doing as good ajob as possible despite the need, in many cases, for additional resources, training and/or personnel.

Most stakeholders understand the process for evaluation and identification of

children with disabilities in the district.

Across the board, problem solving teams in the elementary buildings are functional and providing suggestions for interventions for students.

At the middle school level, there are many occurrences of collaborative or co- teaching occurring within the regular classroom.

Without fail throughout the district, clerical staff takes extensive measures to

ensure that visitors to their buildings are given due attention and consideration.

Weaknesses

Some of the schools have limited understanding and/or implementation of the RtI

model of interventions and supports.

The continuum of services is not equally accessible across the district. There appears to be an excessive occurrence of students being served away from their home school where they would otherwise attend if they did not have a disability.

There appears to be a reported disconnect between the buildings and the central office about special education decisions and communication. There is a reported lack of timely and relevant communications and responses from the central office special education administrators.

Special education personnel are implementing the vast majority of RtI interventions when RtI is supposed to occur prior to the need for special education. This depletes the special education staffs ability to provide higher quality services to their identified IEP caseload.

There is a frustration with the unmet needs of students in the district relating to behaviors and divergence of learners within the general education classrooms.

There is little consistent understanding or application of the criteria resulting in the identification of the need for extended school year services.

Adequate and appropriate classroom facilities in each building related to a continuum of services need to be provided in the students home schools.

There is a marked disparity between the perceptions of general education teachers and special education teachers on the effectiveness of special education services in the district.

The mobility rate for children within the district is twice the state wide average. Communication issues within the district exacerbate the impact of the mobility rate by affecting the continuity of services and transition of the populations affected by the mobility rate.

Opportunities

The district should take the opportunity to analyze the current structure of supervision and management of special education service delivery to improve and increase communication to and from building staff to be more responsive to the needs of students. More authority needs to be allowed at the building level to commit the needed services and supports identified by the IEP teams for students.

The district should take the opportunity to conduct an analysis of all of the students residing in the various home school areas and the services and supports that might be necessary to appropriately serve those students without requiring more than a small percentage of the students to have to be transported to another school building.

The district should develop professional development opportunities relating to special education matters and include general education staff in those professional development activities.

The district should review the potential impact of transitioning the focus of supports from what is now being provided by special education attendants to how needs could be met by a corresponding increase in the provision of resource teachers in the lower grades. Would the increased interventions at a younger age prevent a greater need from occurring or needing to provide more focused support when the students get older?

Use technology to enhance opportunities and capabilities for case load management for staff through a web based information and report system (on line IEPs).

Increase opportunities for utilization of assistive technology for students through systematic procedures and evaluative services as needs are suspected to occur.

An expressed need for professional development by special education staff can also benefit regular education by fostering a consistent enhanced understanding of the RtI process and special education service delivery.

Professional development for principals and their assistants in behavioral management strategies and techniques will increase the functional performance of all students in the building and will likely allow many learning needs to be met before a special education evaluation is required.

A vast majority of attendants are reported to be highly qualified (based upon survey responses) under NCLB, yet their duties under the job category do not reflect an emphasis on the direct support of student learning. These support

personnel could perhaps receive specialized training or be redirected to a role that

results in a more direct support of student learning.

As the district incorporates the common core standards into the curriculum, the opportunity exists to enhance access to that same standard curriculum for all students with IEPs.

Threats

Needs and issues that remain unacknowledged within the stakeholder groups develop into increasingly diverse and significant disconnects within the organization (i.e. delineated in the parent group concerns).

To the degree that reports of IEP minutes not being provided accurately reflect the current situation, there is a significant risk of complaints and due process proceedings resulting in sanctions of the district and a diversion of much needed resources.

The Illinois State Board of Education has stipulated that RtI interventions may not be used to delay a needed special education evaluation. It is consistently apparent that RtI interventions have significantly delayed special education evaluations from taking place in the district.

If quality RtI interventions are not in place for at risk populations, the likelihood of not meeting AYP status relative to ISAT and PSAE testing is increased.

If the perceived needs of groups of students are not being met or responded to there is a greater probability of parents or other groups seeking to create additional charter schools.

There is an inadvisable diligence on the part of some special education administrators focused upon the curricular materials used at the districts charter school. A charter school by definition is exempt from some of the conventions imposed and expected in a traditional school environment. It is potentially problematic to view the charter schools ability to meet the learning needs of IEP students any differently than any other continuum of service site within the

district. That is to say that some of its students may require low incidence services

beyond the scope of the school site.

When determining its proportional share responsibility for private and parochial services the district uses an entire staff members salary as being committed to private and parochial services. If the financial commitment for this proportional share is narrowly determined there is a risk of criticism if services by those personnel are only provided for only a portion of the school year.

Documents

SWOT Final