Through the Lens of Special Education:

Developing a Comprehensive Long-Range Professional

Development Plan for the Bellevue School District
Jean Anthony
Leadership for Learning Special Interest Group: Instructional Policy Design
-Professor Mike Knapp, College of Education, University of Washington, May
2015

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Through the Lens of Special Education: Developing a Comprehensive Long-Range,

Professional Development Plan for Bellevue School District

This document outlines design principles and advice to guide the Bellevue School
Districts effort to fashion a long-range, comprehensive professional development plan that will
support special education teachers, and will be in alignment with and integrated with general
education in the district. These principles are based in ideas about creating strong designs for
policies and improvement strategies aimed at instruction (Knapp, 2014), specifically instruction
for our most struggling learners who are identified with a specific learning disabled (SLD), on
the Autism Spectrum, having attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), or
emotionally behaviorally disordered (EBD), who have average to above average intelligence and
would generally be served by a special education resource program. As the Executive Director
for Special Education in the Bellevue School District, I have studied both qualitative and
quantitative data regarding the special education programs. My research has been through first
hand teacher and administrator observations, study sessions and discussions with colleagues on
the superintendents cabinet, and review of district and state level student performance data.
The discussion begins with building the historical context and background knowledge for
the reader; and provides a rationale for why professional development that is well designed and
aligned with district initiatives will create improved instructional outcomes for students in
special education. The problem of practice is discussed from the student, teacher and district
perspectives and a theory of intervention is proposed. Further discussion is provided in terms of
how district and state initiatives impact the professional development work plan. And finally, the
plan itself is discussed in terms of what has been accomplished so far and next steps. All of this
rests on the premise that the design of the professional development plan itself matters (Knapp,

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

2014). That while the content and methods of delivery are important, the likelihood of a plans
success increases when it is well designed. What makes a well-designed plan or instructional
policy; the essential elements design challenges will be discussed later in the body of this work.
Rationale, Problem of Practice and Theory of Intervention:
Rationale: The improvement strategy offered in this document builds on and seeks to
update and redirect an approach to special education services and support developed almost a
decade ago. In response to a common understanding in the Bellevue School District, that the bar
in general education had been set very high when the then superintendent Mike Riley moved
forward on his agenda that all students in the Bellevue School District would take Advanced
Placement courses, the special education department began to look at itself and initiated an
internal audit. Results from this inward study showed that teachers in special education had
wildly different instructional practices and either selected curriculum or materials based on what
was most easily available or didnt use a curriculum at all. There was no internal alignment
within special education let alone any uniform alignment with the general education curriculum,
specifically for students with average to above average intelligence on which this instructional
design is focused.
Approximately, eight years ago, the Bellevue School District (BSD) launched a
committee to scour the field and find the best research validated special education curriculum in
the nation. The committee was made up of special education administrators, teachers, school
psychologists and other related service providers. This committee researched and identified
curriculum and materials to meet a myriad of academic needs (reading, writing and math) of
students in special education from elementary through high school. The recommended
curriculum and materials were adopted and purchased. It should be noted that this was an
3

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

amazing thing for BSD to do! Most school districts do not commit the substantial resources
required to research, purchase and train special education staff on a district wide curriculum
designed specifically for special education.
The special education department was then charged with designing and implementing
training for teachers as well as ensuring that the district adopted curriculum and materials were
implemented with fidelity. All of the resources (time, people and money) for professional
development that were under the jurisdiction of special education became dedicated to increasing
the capacity of special education teachers to implement the district adopted curriculum, with
fidelity1, from 2007-08 through 2012-13 school years. The primary opportunities for
professional development occurred in the form of classes offered for clock hours after school
with an occasional early release day. Sporadically, teachers who were experiencing difficulties
could get consultation from the Special Education Curriculum Developers (there were and still
are two for all content areas and grade levels for the 29 schools across the district).
Early in the process of implementation, the special education department went a step
further and created guidelines that specified the curriculum, scheduling and minutes suggested
for each students IEP goal area. For example, the guidelines for an elementary student with an
IEP goal in math looks like this:
Goal Area
Math

Minutes
60 minutes 5 days a week
(300 min per week)

Scheduling
Supplants Gen Ed Math

Curriculum
Core: Connecting Math
Concepts
Fluency Building
Rocket Math

1 Implementation of curriculum with fidelity is often viewed as the only way to get the
desired results promised by the publishers. This concept, however, can have the negative
affect of being inflexible, rigid and implemented without regard to student need in the
moment.

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

This became the districts special education instructional practice. And, while it was
amazing and wonderful that BSD adopted, purchased, trained, and guided special education
curriculum and instruction, unintended consequences for students, staff, families and district
surfaced. These consequences form the basis for the problem of practice that will be addressed
through a new instructional policy 2design proposed later in this paper. Additionally, the direct
instruction curriculum became a signal to educators, students and families that to be served in
special education is to be viewed as an other. That is, students with IEPs belong in separate
classes, with separate sets of expectations, which rests on the notion that those students require a
special curriculum provided with special instructional knowledge held solely by the experts in
special education.
The perception of otherness has led to the belief that the differences imparted by the
individuals disability contribute more dissimilarity than actually exists (Bogdan &
Knoll, 1995; U.S. Commission on Civil Liberties, 1983). (Murdick et al, 2004 p. 310).
In many ways, this approach runs counter to a basic tenet of special education law and
best practice, which students must be served in the least restrictive environment possible, and
that they be integrated into the education program offered to all students as much as possible.
While attempting to solve a problem, the development of strict curriculum guidelines created, in
effect, a new problem of practice that Bellevue now needs to address.
Problem of Practice:
The districts adopted curriculum was overwhelmingly designed as scripted direct
instruction, which targeted building discrete fundamental academic skills in reading, writing, and
math. Do students with disabilities need to learn fundamental skills such as decoding or math
computation? Absolutely. Do they need to learn them in an isolated and separate track from
2 Here the term policy refers to a design for action that unfolds over timeand that can
evolve as it unfolds. (Knapp, 2014)

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

general education? Not necessarily; and the unintended consequences from the implementation
of the special education curriculum gave further fuel to the othering of students with IEPs.
The direct instruction curriculum, which does not align with the core curriculum
standards and pacing, began to supplant the general education curriculum. It was, in fact, an
overcorrection for an identified problem regarding the lack of rigor and relevance in special
education instruction throughout the district. Several years into the implementation, significant
consequences began to be realized. First, the curriculum increased the time students spent in
special education settings, which took them further off track from keeping pace with their
general education peers. The changes in Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data from the
2006-07 to 2013-14 school years shows a substantial decrease in the amount of time students
spend in general education. In the 2006-07 school year, 50% of students with IEPs spent 80100% of their instructional time in the general education setting. By 2013-14 the LRE data had
decreased to 30% of students spending 80-100% of their time in general education, which is a
significant change (Table 1).

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Bellevue School District Special Education

Changes in Least Restrictive Environment
60
50

50

46
41

40
3080-100%
Percent in General Education

40

40
35
29

30

20
10
0

As students moved from elementary to middle to high school, the instruction became
more and more dependent on the special education curriculum. Identifying a student for special
education became a life sentence. The longer students were exposed to special education
curriculum that supplanted the general education curriculum, the less likely they would catch
up. In 2012-13, as students who had been identified for special education in elementary school
began to reach the 10th or 11th grade, parents and teachers suddenly realized that many students
were not on track to graduate with a high school diploma that met college requirements and not
on track to graduate on time.
Second, using the direct instruction curriculum and special education guidelines for
course placement and scheduling eroded teachers use of professional judgment in designing and
implementing individualized instructional programs (the IEP). They began to rely on a formula
for student educational programming and placement; much as they were relying on the direct
instruction curriculum to drive all programming related to the IEP. Even though the guidelines
were intended to be just guidelines, they became the way to do business and the I in IEP began
7

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

to disappear. In fact, many teachers today still talk about being reprimanded if they strayed away
from developing a students instructional program based on the guidelines. Removing the locus
of control from special education staff for individual program development also took away the
incentive to collaborate with the students general education teachers. Further distance between
general education and special education was created for both students and staff. This reinforced
the belief that students with special needs are not general education students first and are best
served by being sent to experts to receive instruction.3 The signal being sent by the district
undermined the concept of shared ownership for students; that every student belonged to
everyone.
Two additional unintended consequences are important to note. As the guidelines
continued to dictate how students were served and the number of minutes of special education
instruction, they began to drive staffing allocations. Because direct instruction methodologies
were being implemented on a wide scale, students needed to be grouped by instructional levels
determined by level and lesson placement. Each spring, teachers were given a spreadsheet to
determine the instructional groups for the upcoming fall. This spreadsheet calculated the number
of instructional minutes by curriculum level, which was then translated into the Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) required to teach all of the instructional groups at that school. The result was
that some schools with low numbers of students in special education had higher FTE allocated
than other schools with higher numbers. It is not uncommon for special education to distribute
staffing using different ratios based on student need. That is, students with more intensive needs

3 There is an argument that a small percentage of students are so disabled that they require
an alternative set of standards based on functional living skills. According to the National
Center for Education Statistics/Institute of Education Sciences website (www.nces.ed.gov)
0.9% of all students between ages 6-21 were identified as Intellectually Disabled in 2010-11.
For that same year, 4.8% of all students within that same age range were identified as
having a Specific Learning Disability (with at least average intelligence).

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

require a lower student-teacher ratio. What didnt make sense in this case is that the staffing
allocation was not based on the level of student need, but rather on where students landed in the
sequence of the curriculum.
A related unintended consequence is in regard to the teacher evaluation process. With the
onset of TPEP, it became clear to teachers and their evaluators that scripted direct instruction
curriculum did not align with the district adopted instructional frameworks. For example, using
the Danielson Framework, what does 3.e.: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness look
like when delivering scripted direct instruction curriculum? Teachers began to express angst
about how the evaluation process was being applied to them, as they had little opportunity to
demonstrate proficiency. This is another example of separating and othering students in special
education.
The problem of practice, therefore, manifests in multiple levels, at the student, teacher
and administrative levels as summarized below:

Students in special
education are not
meeting proficiency
on district
initiatives &
standards; having
less opportunities
to access core
curriculum.

Special education
teachers struggle
to make of use the
scripted direct
instruction
curriculum in ways
tha provide access
to the core
curriculum.

Supervisors and
central office
administrators
struggle to support
& evaluate special
education teachers
in ways that are
aligned with district
policies.

Theory of Intervention: a Design for Professional Learning

and Instructional Improvement

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Every system is perfectly designed to achieve exactly the results it gets4 and the
professional development system, which was based on the adopted curriculum guidelines for
special education described above, was no exception. The needs of the curriculum drove all of
the professional development and sent a signal that it was the top priority for all teachers.
Through the hours of training, teachers began to lose their ability to exercise professional
judgment, be flexible, responsive and adaptive. The art and skill of adapting and modifying
general education curriculum to meet the needs of students with IEPs was disappearing.
A theory of intervention to address Bellevues problem of practice can be understood in
terms of the following instructional improvement design that centrally features a new long-range
professional development plan. The design is anchored by a vision of good instruction for
students and a corresponding vision of professional learning for teachers.
In brief, the theory of intervention can be summarized as follows: in order for students in
special education to receive a different kind of instruction that will allow them access the core
curriculum in a more meaningful way, which will in turn provide them with the opportunity
achieve at the same standards as their peers and graduate from high school college and career
ready (BSD Instructional Initiatives), special education and general education teachers must
teach differently. In order for teachers to teach differently, they need to understand the rationale
for doing so and be given the skills to change. In order to make that happen, special education
and other central office leaders need to develop a comprehensive, long-range professional
development plan that is differentiated to meet teachers where ever they are in their career and
learning, provided at multiple times throughout a two-year time frame, job-embedded and based

4 As quoted in: http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/page-1/qua-256546/Berwick-Pushesfor-Quality

10

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

on the belief that teachers teach the best way that they know how to, until they learn how to do it
better.

If central office
leaders implement a
long range
professional
development plan
aimed at a vision of
good instruction for
students in special
education,

Then general and

special education
teachers will learn
how to provide
instruction that is
aligned with and
provides access to
the core curriculum ,

Then students in
special education will
have meaningful
access to the core
curriculum with
greater opportunity to
graduate high school
college & career
ready

What is the vision of good instruction for students, especially those with identified disabilities?
The work in BSD leads us towards examining alternative models for instruction.
Specifically, work has begun with designing co-teaching models. Carrying this work forward,
the district will need to articulate a clear vision of good instruction for students with disabilities
that moves us beyond the self-limiting direct instruction model we have been living with for
nearly a decade. So a first and central element of the new design is a process for arriving at a
new instructional vision and sharing that widely.5 When the problem of practice and theory of
intervention are well understood, the design teams will begin to address the question of how to
create a compelling vision of good instruction that is relevant and founded on sound principles of
pedagogy (Knapp, 2014).

5 In fact, the English Language Learner (ELL) department has established seven models for co-teaching, which are
demonstrated in a video (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFjdUUJJB65XR7uc64TxCIDZRkGLpJCRJ)

11

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

What is the vision of good support for professional learning?

Corresponding to the new vision for student learning, and associated teaching, must be
one for what constitutes good support for professional learning. The design teams will have to
address how the design of the professional development plan will motivate and support teachers,
instructional leaders, paraeducators and others to engage in the learning. The professional
development structure is a menu, which will span over a three-year period, and identifies both
required and optional trainings. Borrowing from Response To Intervention (RTI) and Multi
Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), there are universal, targeted and intensive levels of training.
Additional elements to be addressed in the professional development plan include incorporating
ways to address the variable capacity of the adult learners. Just as with children, adults arrive to
the learning environment with different background experiences, knowledge, skills and
disposition. In effect, BSD professional development and teaching competencies will be created
and teachers will be expected to put forth the effort to participate in trainings to master specific
knowledge and skills.
The big buckets for special education include Curriculum, Instruction and IDEA/IEP
Compliance. Each of these areas will be further defined to include trainings in areas such as
formative assessment to improve learning, developing IEP goals that incorporate CCSS,
integrating technology into the learning environment, adapting lessons, implementing alternative
methods for delivering services such as co-teaching and so forth.
How will strong support for professional learning be realized, aligned to the new visions of
student learning?

12

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

In response to the study of special education that the superintendent commissioned in

2013, a multidisciplinary team that included parents, special education and non-special education
staff and administrators developed a Strategic Road Map for improvement (the group refers to
themselves as the Implementation Team). The Road Map identifies both foundational (long
term) and targeted (short term) strategies that provide direction for the cycle of continuous
improvement. In additional to the Implementation Team, there is a special education Leadership
Advisory composed of program coordinators, curriculum, behavior and inclusion specialists and
central office special education administrators. These two groups are the main design teams,
who will carry forward the work of articulating visions, and developing the more specific plan
for realizing an improved system of support for professional learning for special education
teachers.
As the professional development plan is developed, another important group to work with is the
Instructional Team, which is led by the deputy superintendent and includes directors of
curriculum, student services (Title I, ELL, special education) and schools. This team is
responsible for setting the course for all of the districts work on the instructional side of the
house. The professional development plan for special education must be integrated into the
districts overall plans. Rather than follow a separate path, special education needs to be colocated and aligned.
Expected outcomes for students with identified disabilities, special education teachers, and
building as well as central office leaders.
Once it is built and operational, the improved professional development plan will
contribute to the following outcomes.

13

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Students in Special Education will achieve to the same standards as their general
education peers when they are provided specially designed instruction based on the core
curriculum and their individual needs.

Special education teachers will know how to deliver instruction in the core curriculum
(reading, writing, math) while accommodating the individual needs of students in special
education when provided with aligned professional development.

Building & central office leaders will align professional development and other resources
to support students in special education meeting standards in the core curriculum.
Concurrent Developments and Commitments that Support
the Theory of Intervention
Additional factorsconcurrent development and commitments in the districtsupport

the need for change and can act both as impetus and rationale. We are in a time of mandated and
self-imposed change and this provides BSD with opportunities to realign all efforts at improving
instruction, and therefore, improving outcomes for students.
The Instructional Initiatives are the heart of the work of the district and provide
the frame for all efforts:

District Instructional Initiatives:

o Academic Success-Each and every student will demonstrate proficiency in
literacy, math and science as measured by the state assessments in:
3rd grade reading
5th grade math
7th grade writing
8th grade science (STEM)
o College & Career Ready-Each and every student will:
Graduate high school
Meet college academic distribution requirements
Earn the equivalent of 20 college credits and/or professional certification
o Positive & Productive Life-Each and every student will be prepared to lead a
positive and productive life through the development of:
14

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Interpersonal skills
Commitment to the community

In order to actualize the statement each and every, the district took a look at data trends
for the approximately 15% of students who are not proficient on state assessments and
discovered that that group has overwhelmingly and consistently been populated by students of
color overtime, specifically African American and Latino6 (note that this is not to say that all
students of color are failing). To address this stubborn achievement gap, which points
specifically to race and cultural differences between students and the instructional culture, BSD
determined that reaching 100% of the students means changing beliefs and practices; that
understanding the influence of race on student achievement is essential:

Equity Training
o Pacific Education Group: Courageous Conversations about Race; a 5 year
commitment that provides cascading professional development eventually
touching not only staff, but the Board, students and parents as well.7

Recognizing that BSD has little to offer between general education and intensive
intervention (special education) and that social emotional learning (SEL), positive behavior
intervention & supports (PBIS) and family and school partnerships are essential components
along with academics, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support models are being adopted and
developed. The MTSS model shows promise in developing supports and services that wrap
around individual students and are implemented consistently throughout the district:

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support development (MTSS)

o Based on the Colorado Department of Education work on MTSS8

6 BSD demographic data for 2013-14 school year: 0.2% Native American, 2.7% African
American, 8.5% Two or More Races, 11.5% Hispanic, 32.7% Asian/Pacific Islander, 44.4%
White (reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us).
7 http://www.pacificeducationalgroup.com/public/pages/home
8 Framed around six essential components: Shared Leadership; Data-based Problem Solving
and Decision Making; Layered Continuum of Supports; Evidenced-based Instruction,
Intervention and Assessment Practices, Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring; Family,

15

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

The following elements also play a role in driving and supporting the work of the
professional development plan specifically as they relate to meeting the needs of students in
special education through increasing the knowledge and skill of teachers and staff:

TPEP and the Danielson Instructional Framework

o The Bellevue Education Association and the district administration have worked
together in an authentic partnership to develop understanding and use of the
Danielson instructional framework and TPEP. Special education teachers and
support staff (psychologists, speech & language pathologists, occupational
therapists and physical therapists) are included in varying degrees.

Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

o The CCSS are important for teachers and staff in special education to know and
understand. They are not, however, to serve as IEP goals. Work has begun with a
focus on how to bridge CCSS and IEP goals for individual students.

Results Driven Accountability (RDA)

o Federal shift in IDEA Accountability from compliance only to compliance and
student outcomes based on state determined improvement goals. Goals for
Washington have not yet been revealed.

Special Education Strategic Road Map

o Foundational Strategies: Equity & Inclusion, High Quality Instruction and
Student Support Systems, Responsive & Student Outcome Focused Professional
Development, Family & School Partnerships, Transitions and College, Career and
Life Readiness.
o Targeted Strategies: Increase equity and inclusion for all students through
equitable access to general education and elimination of institutional barriers to
quality instruction; Define, develop, and implement Multi-tiered Systems of
Support (MTSS), ensuring that it includes tiered interventions for all students in
partnership with district-wide work; Provide professional development that is
student-focused, based on educator learning needs, and responsive to the
programmatic directions within the special education department and the school
district; Increase support for social-emotional learning for students, in
coordination with the BSD Social-Emotional Learning Initiative; Improve and reenvision transition services.

School and Community Partnering. http://www.cde.state.co.us/mtss/resources

16

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

The professional development plan under development now will take full advantage of these
activities, and will complement them; as well leverage them to supporting a better learning
experience for the districts special education students.

What Has Been Accomplished So Far?

Just as all students in special education are general education students first, special
education is a department that rests within the district overall. To that end, the instructional
improvement design aimed at special education must be nested within the districts overall
professional development plan. Previously, there was no articulated, comprehensive professional
development plan. So, the work began there. The Instructional Team, referred to in the
discussion about the design teams, is developing an overall framework that identifies who needs
what kind of training, how it will be delivered and when that training will be offered. The
following components, which each include universal, targeted and intensive levels, are:
o General topics and overviews: mission, vision, initiatives, equity, MTSS,
professional collaboration, Danielson instructional framework,
o Academics: CCSS, assessment, data analysis, instructional strategies,
differentiation, accommodations and modifications, GLAD-Guided
Language Acquisition and Development, instructional technology,
o College and career readiness: assessment, dual credits with colleges,
technology, data analysis,
o Positive and productive life: climate and culture through PBIS, proactive
classroom management, relationship building, diversity, communication
with families, social-emotional learning,
o Operations: Board policies and district procedures, technology,
emergency and crisis, safety, legal and employment issues, personnel
contracts and accessing district resources.
Target groups of participants are composed of the following:

17

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Teachers: by level (K-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12); by content area (English

Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, Health, PE, Fine Arts,
Performing Arts, World Languages, Technology); by discipline (Gifted,
ELL, Special Education-resource and center-program, College & Career
Technical Education, AVID-Advancement Via Individual Determination),

Non-classroom based teachers and staff: Librarians, Deans, Counselors,

Curriculum Developers, Instructional Technology Curriculum Developers,
Program Coordinators, ESAs (Education Associate Staff) including
Psychologists, Speech and Language Pathologists, Occupational
Therapists, Physical Therapists, Vision Specialist and Nurses,

Administrators: principals, assistant principals, directors, supervisors,

managers, cabinet.

Varied levels of experience: Novice, new to Bellevue, in a new role (but

not new to Bellevue).

In essence, key players such as the Instructional Team, have bought into the idea that
professional development should be planned out in a long-range, comprehensive,
inclusive and coordinated fashion that includes planning for multiple years, which
had not happened previously. At this point, the Instructional Team has designed the
overall framework of the professional development plan in order to ensure that
essential elements are included; the who and the what. The how, which includes the
specific content to be delivered, by whom and when, will be developed by the next
level of design teams.

What Does the Professional Development Plan Look Like to Meet the Needs of Students in
Special Education?
Identifying core competencies and expectations for special education is an essential place
to start. The knowledge and instructional base required to best meet the needs of students in
special education, for generalists, specialists and administration must be defined and articulated.

18

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Aligning our work with work that is already going on in the district is an efficient way to
maximize understanding, implementation and sustainability. Therefore, this particular section
utilizes the Danielson Instructional Framework for sense-making. In conjunction with the
Special Education Leadership Advisory and the Implementation Team, the core competencies
identified for special education are represented in the following chart (draft):
Competencies
Domain 1:

Domain 2:
Student Behavior

Expected Outcomes
Planning and Preparation
1. Develops lesson plans based on IEP goals, CCSS, BSD core
curriculum.
2. Demonstrates knowledge of individual students.
3. Designs instruction in a coherent manner.
4. Effectively designs varied forms of assessment aligned with
instructional outcomes.
Classroom Environment
1. Uses effective techniques to maintain positive behaviors by
recognizing and reinforcing appropriate behavior (Positive Behavior
Support Systems).
2. Uses effective techniques to maintain positive behavior by making
effective use of preventative strategies including sensory supports.
3. Establishes, teachers and maintains rules, routines, schedules
4. Identifies essential components of a functional behavior assessment
and resources to support the teacher team in the process

Domain 3:

Instruction
1. Assesses student learning, uses assessment results to plan, selects
learning experiences, delivers instruction and reflects on evidence of
student learning. (Co-teaching and other models of instruction)
2. Provides direct instruction in skills and strategies to ensure that
students have access to and benefit from general education
curriculum using the components of lesson design in the advance
organizer. (Co-teaching and other models of instruction)
3. Adjusts instruction in response to student need and performance.

Domain 4:
Equity &
Inclusion
Legal Issues &

Professional Responsibilities
1. Ensures that all students are educated in the least restrictive
environment.
2. Demonstrates knowledge of the IEP process and legal issues.

19

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Compliance
3. Demonstrates basic technology skills to comply with district
procedures and expectations.

These core competencies will be further refined as a second layer design teams,
composed of content-focused members such as the curriculum developers for English language
arts, mathematics, science, special education and so forth, review them. With the guidance of the
Instructional Team, the design teams will wrestle with questions such as: Are these elements of
the adopted instructional framework the most strategic and aligned to the theory of intervention?
Why or why not? What will be provided to all (universal), to many (targeted) and to a few
(intensive)? How will professional development be delivered to each group of participants
(teachers, support staff and administrators) based on both their roles as well as individual
capacity?
The design teams will address professional development needs for staff outside special
education (general education teachers, support staff and administrators) that align with the theory
of intervention. Realizing that general education and special education professional development
needs may be different, the draft core competencies for general education staff fall into the
following basic categories:

Understanding differences and disabilities

Behavior basics
Accommodations and modifications
Collaboration and co-teaching models (joint work with special education)
Legal and compliance issues

Those of us who work in special education especially understand that when it comes to
instruction, one size does not fit all. Therefore, this professional development plan incorporates

20

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

multiple pathways for the adult learner. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) outlines
when professional development opportunities can be required and offered by district
administration, when it is voluntary with pay and when it is voluntary without pay. Professional
development can be offered in the form of a large group, as in the Learning Improvement Days
before school when everyone is getting the same content, or discipline specific courses such as
one-shot workshop offerings. Individuals can also direct professional development, as can
groups of teachers through professional learning groups at either school building (such as grade
level groups) or district levels (such as all elementary PE teachers or all speech and language
pathologists). Yet these avenues fall short of meeting everyones needs.
The design teams will also need to address the various delivery methods such as jobembedded supports in the form of mentor teachers, program specific training (for those working
with students on the Autism spectrum or with Specific Learning Disabilities, as examples) and
individual coaching. In this way, the team will also address the design challenges of motivating
and supporting the adult learners as well as variable capacity, for both those with lower and
higher capacity.

How Do We Know This is the Right Kind Of Professional Development Plan and
That We Are Making A Difference In Outcomes For Students?
Ongoing and annual evaluation of the professional development plan rests on identifying
specific outcomes for students based on the benchmarks set by the districts Instructional
Initiatives. There is an accordion type of process that provides for feedback to inform the design
teams of adjustments needed. This information can be gathered through job-alike meetings,
surveys, informal discussions, classroom observations seeking evidence of the core competencies

21

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

and student growth measures. There is great opportunity here for the design teams, particularly
the Instructional Team, to not only ask what has been accomplished, what has been learned, but
also what is different for students as a result of the focus on adult training and what are we
basing that on?

Conclusion
In conclusion, the comprehensive long-range professional development plan for Bellevue
School District is well underway, yet still a work in progress. As the end of the school year is
fast approaching, the design teams, including both the Instructional Team and the Special
Education Leadership Advisory, are making final plans for summer and early fall professional
development, including content, scheduling and identifying facilitators, the latter will include inhouse experts as a way to address the variable capacity of those staff with high levels of
expertise.
The graphic below depicts the overall intent of the professional development plan. The
planning process began with the Instructional Team agreeing on the general principle that all
staff need a certain kind of training, such as the districts mission, vision and instructional
initiatives, and is represented as the Universal layer. Some staff will require more specific or
more in-depth training on certain content areas. For example, principals will need more training
on the instructional initiatives and would, therefore, receive Targeted training. Along that same
thinking, the corps of curriculum developers would need intensive training in the instructional

22

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

initiatives since they are closer to the point of implementation and require more in-depth and
technical knowledge.
The problem of practice that initiated the re-imagining of the professional development
plan in the Bellevue School District began with noticing that a large group of students in special
education were receiving less time in general education, which resulted in less access to the core
curriculum and fewer credits for graduating ready for college and career opportunities. This led
to a theory of intervention, which became represented by the professional development plan
itself that nests special education within the overall district professional development work.
Future work of key importance, however, is to establish exactly how general and special
educators will be meaningfully engaged in co-constructing the content and methods of delivery
(Allen, 2006). The third layer of the design team structure (with the Instructional Team at the
core and the Special Education Leadership Advisory and Curriculum Developers as the second
layer) will likely be a group of general and special educators who will add detail and, in effect,
vet the plan.
In order to build a successful and sustainable professional development plan with specific
learning outcomes for staff, we must pay close attention to moving beyond policy mandates. The
work of the district now is focused on fleshing out the professional development plan and
continuing to refine and expand it over time; in effect, to create a professional development
policy that is a course of action that unfolds and evolves over time and is aimed at improving
instructional outcomes for each and every student.

23

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Conceptualization of the Professional Development Plan Guiding Framework:

24

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

Attachment 1: Everyone wants a piece of the professional development pie.

Bibliography
Allen, D. (Winter 2006). The push to excellence: Teachers focus on professional learning to lift
student achievement. National Staff Development Council, 27, No. 1, pp. 56-60.
Cohen, D., Goldin, S., Moffitt, S. (August 01, 2007). Policy and Practice: The Dilemma.
American Journal of Education, 113, No. 4, pp. 515-548.
Knapp, M. (2014), Policy Design and the Improvement of Instruction, unpublished paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council on Educational Administration,
Washington, DC, November 2014.
Murdick, N., Shore, P., Chittooran, M. M., & Gartin, B. (January 01, 2004). Cross-Cultural
Comparison of the Concept of "Otherness" and Its Impact on Persons with Disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, No. 4, pp. 310-316.
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A
Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research. Council for Exceptional Children, 73, No. 4, pp. 392416.
Witherspoon, P. (1997). Communicating leadership: An organizational perspective. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

25

Jean Anthony

Instructional Policy Design Plan

May 2015

26