Special Delivery Plan

We've spent the last couple of weeks discussing some of the strengths, and opportunities for improving our special education program here at Hudson. If anything, you have probably learned that the mechanics and implementation of special education is complicated. This is because while public schools are a function and responsibility of the state, federal law governs special education. It also provides a portion of funding for the program, which can be used as a hammer if the school is out of compliance. Prior to 1975 children with disabilities were often excluded from public schools or outright denied appropriate education. Public law 94-142 was enacted by Congress in 1975, reauthorized in 1990, and in 2004. Today we know that law as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The genesis behind the original and subsequently re-authorized 'Education for All Handicapped Children' was to ensure that children with disabilities received a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in their Least Restrictive Environment. The law mandates public schools go to great lengths to ensure implementation, which is one of the reasons special education programs are costly. That, and the fact that the funding model hasn't been updated in years. Which means cost overruns are borne by property tax payers. Hint: if we want to reduce property taxes in Iowa, which we do, a great place to start would be updating this model. The statewide special education deficit in Iowa in FY2024 was more than $200 million. All property taxes.

You see, the beauty of public education is that it is tuition free and that it is intended to serve all students, regardless of disability. That wasn't always the case prior to the enactment of PL 94-142. It went a step further though, by saying that, not only are they entitled to FAPE, the are entitled to participate in the least restrictive environment. The least restrictive environment [being] the general education classroom with their peers to the maximum extent that is appropriate. Oftentimes, students served in special education programs have specific content areas that have been identified as goal areas for improvement. In order to show progress toward these goals, they may receive specially designed instruction; which by its very definition is different from their general education counterparts. It is not uncommon then, for that instruction to occur outside the general education setting in the special education classroom: which make the environment for the student more restrictive. 

The law also requires each student served in the program to have a tailored educational plan (IEP) that outlines the goals for the student, the amount of specially designed instruction that will be provided and where, and progress monitoring mechanisms to regularly check to see if the instruction is effective. There are also numerous procedural safeguards in place that ensure parents are part of the decision making process and that no changes are made to the plan without consultation of the entire IEP team, of which the parent is a member. 

Internally, all of this is governed by our District Developed Service Delivery Plan. Primarily, there are two key components of this plan. The first is the continuum of services that is offered as part of our public school system. In general terms, it describes services beginning in preschool and continuing into the regular K-12 academic program up to the age of 21. This part of the plan describes a range of services from K-12 consultation (least restrictive) to K-12 Special Class, which may include special schools (most restrictive). Students in our community are served all along our defined continuum of services in Hudson Schools. 

The other key component in the plan is the monitoring and evaluation of caseloads. You may recall that I devoted some time to this discussion in my article last week. If you recall, each student served in the program is weighted from 1-3 dependent on their level of services. The number of points in a caseload then, does not translate into the number of students in the class. Special education classes are typically smaller due to the level of intensive instruction that is delivered, the collaboration that needs to occur between the general education and special education teacher, and the management of the paperwork. 

Ultimately, navigating the complexities of special education is a balancing act between rigorous federal mandates, fiscal realities, and our unwavering commitment to ALL our students. While the financial structures—and the property tax burden they create—clearly require a modern solution at the state level, our focus in Hudson remains on the individual child. By maintaining a robust District Developed Service Delivery Plan and supporting our dedicated educators, we ensure that every student and parent has a seat at the table and a path toward success. We aren't just meeting a legal requirement; we are fulfilling a promise to every family in our community that their child belongs here.

Improving our Special Education Program for All Stakeholders

We were not in search of a pat on the back when we commissioned a study of our special education program. Granted, the platitudes were very nice, but that wasn't the point. As I mentioned last week, one of the overarching concerns was to understand whether or not we had the right mix of administrative support for the general supervision of the program. Based on our analysis of the report, we do. In my time with you last week, we discussed all the positive attributes of our program and recognize there is a lot to be proud of. Our staff, teachers and paraeducators alike work incredibly hard and are getting solid results. We continue to ask more and more of them each passing day, and they do their jobs without complaint. But at the same time, we have to recognize and be sensitive of asking too much. Today I want to share with you our priorities moving forward and some of the recommendations the report proposes.

There really are three main takeaways outlined in the report where opportunities for improvement exist, and all are connected in one way or another. Behavioral support systems, time and collaboration, and ensuring equitable implementation of IEPs through enhanced professional development and accountability structures. 

In recent years, we have begun to see much more complex behavior needs from some of our students. Correcting problematic behavior starts with a comprehensive schoolwide behavior support system. You may be familiar with the 'Keys of Excellence' program that is currently in place in our school district. What makes programs like these effective is consistency across each grade level throughout the district. The implementation of a common language, clear expectations, and progressive consequences that are consistent for each student, especially those served in our special education programs that require specially designed instruction for behavior. Truth be told, Keys of Excellence predates me and was implemented well before my tenure began. In the intervening years as the natural turnover of staff has occurred, the fidelity with which the program was originally implemented has begun to deteriorate. With new counseling staff coming onboard next year this is a perfect opportunity to 'reset' the program and perhaps take the time to see if another program might better serve the district. This could enable us to implement a system that allows educators to regularly review this 'Tier One' data and address behavioral concerns in the same manner as academic concerns part of a full system of support with 'Tier Three' interventions being the most intense. 

Time to do the work and collaborate with colleagues was an area of concern identified by the our professional staff. Teachers have indicated they are having difficulty keeping up with their workload. This includes the time that is required to collaborate with other teachers on matters of instruction as outlined in the student IEP (individualized education program). I'm not surprised. One disruptive student can take a tremendous amount of time and energy to manage. Additionally, the paperwork trail that is created with an IEP is voluminous and takes constant updating and record-keeping. Part of the reason for this feeling of overload is a problem of our own making. You see, the staffing pattern that we anticipated a year ago did not end up being the reality that materialized. Unlike general education where class sizes are evenly divided, special educators workload is governed by our service delivery plan and a concept known as caseload. Students served in special education are weighted from 1 to 3 points depending on the intensity of the services needed, and our plan calls for no more than 20 points per teacher. Now, while our caseloads are within the margins, in many instances it has still been very taxing on staff. This is because of the staffing pattern deployed. Logistically, caseloads should be banded together: K-2; 3-4; 5-6; 7-8; 9-10; 11-12. That is not the approach we took this year. Special education teachers may have had a second grade student as well as a fifth grade student. On paper, we were able to balance the caseloads. In practice, it made the management and mandated collaboration time almost impossible to coordinate. Granted, determining caseloads when there is a transitory nature to the program makes this all the more difficult. However, moving forward we are being much more thoughtful, not just about whether or not it works on paper, but if the logistics of scheduling are also appropriate. Our hope is this will enable us to establish protected collaboration time for special education teachers and general education teachers across the district. 

Finally we now turn to enhanced professional development and accountability structures. One could probably argue that sometimes the details of the IEP are lost in translation when it comes to deploying accommodations in the general education setting. Perhaps this is one of the reasons legislation was posed that would require general education teachers to read each IEP from top to bottom. Perhaps theoretically a good idea (or colloquially speaking, 'looks good on paper'), but in practice I don't believe this will have the desired outcome. Instead, an approach that incorporates professional development into practice would have a much better chance of being implemented with fidelity. Understanding where to find the accommodations page and reasons for the accommodations is likely more important than analyzing the trendline or being able to explain the 'effect of disability statement' with any level of coherence. To help with some of this work, next year we have appointed a teacher leader to serve in this capacity. In addition to carrying a caseload, they will assist in the development of quality and useful professional learning for all staff; professional development that also links the relationship between the special education, general education; and perhaps most importantly the paraeducator. After all, they are the ones most likely to be tasked with implementing the accommodation. Shouldn't they understand the reasons why as well?

We are proud of the work of our special education staff and the work they do! The results of our study underscored the results they get daily. At the same time though, we recognize that changes can be made that can take some of the pressure off. Hopefully these changes will assist in that effort.