Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
d from the originally projected board meeting of April 18 to its
meeting
of
May
2
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
All Rights Reserved - W E Thoman
Inc. 2011
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
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
m
midnight of June I' 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 deach school building.
The team was in the st
district conducting interviews on May 23 26 and 31'
d also on June l
ndt
d 2 special
vse e
conducted randomly selected interviews of over 125
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.
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.
Lar
Hyde
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.
Functional.)
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.
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:
16.
2.
4.
6.
9.
12
.
13
.
14
.
15
.
All Rights Reserved - W E Thoman
Inc. 2011
W
he
n
m
y
da
ug
ht
er
wa
s
at
X
sc
ho
ol
sh
e
wa
s
do
in
g
be
tte
r.
N
o
w
at
Y
sc
ho
ol
an
d
no
t
do
in
g
as
we
ll.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Dont make any changes! My little cousin went from making all Fs to the honor
roll. I am very proud of him!
I am pleased with my childs improvement thus far. I cant wait til next year.
Need more homework.
No changes, you are doing great.
Always room for improvement, but the program is an effective one for me and
my family as it is.
Would like to see an increase in the amount of time with the SLP.
Time allowed for IEP meetings is too short. Everyone feels rushed. Times are
assigned and often not convenient for parent.
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.
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.
All personnel have been supportive throughout our sons education. Thanks!
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.
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.
Need more lifeskills classes.
Initial screening process a bit unprofessional. Staff arrived late and were
unapologetic about their tardiness. Improved once the actual teachers were there.
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.
2.
3.
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.
I fought this district for years to get him services. The district
wouldnt acknowledge problems until the behaviors became
significant.
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 OrtonGillingham.
4.
21.
6.
7.
8.
9
12
.
14.
15.
16.
17
.
18.
19.
20
.
I
h
a
d
pr
o
vi
d
e
d
th
re
e
le
tt
er
s
of
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
at
io
n
fo
r
m
y
c
hi
ld
to
u
22.
All Rights Reserved W E Thoman
Inc. 2011
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.
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.
the statement.
All Rights Reserved W E Thoman
Inc. 2011
students. 79% strongly agree or agree to this statement. Once again, less
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
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.
All Rights Reserved - W E Thoman
Inc. 2011
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.
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
with an IEP. 58% strongly agree or agree tO this statement. However, 39% slightly
and have expanded my capacity to improve student learner outcomes. 63% strongly agree or agree
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.
that they had received training during the past two semesters.
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.
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..
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
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.