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. 

Bright Spots in Our Special Education Program

When the legislation was enacted changing the operational posture of the AEA system in Iowa, it caused quite a sea change in public schools. Many of the services that we once relied on were eliminated and support that we had relied on was no longer available. There were a lot of concerns with this legislation, and most of them have been voiced here. But, perhaps the one that gave me the most heartburn was special education support. Like most smaller school districts in the state, we relied on the AEA to provide guidance and a safety net for special education operations. You see, special education is a very complex program with rules and regulations that seem to be constantly changing. We have to deal with a mix of federal and state funding, be cognizant of a concept known and 'least restrictive environment', have a basic working knowledge of Medicaid, and understand what specially designed instruction looks like. Perhaps most importantly, ensure that our special education teachers are getting the support they need through general supervision of the program. 

A lot of the aforementioned were concepts that we relied on the AEA to assist with. Good thing too. You see, by trade I'm a music teacher. The skill set between teaching a student to sing or play the piano is quite different than those needed to develop and deliver specially designed instruction. Likewise, the other three principals on the team aren't special education teachers by trade either (although they are light years ahead of me when it comes to this type of expertise). Indeed, this phenomenon isn't unique to Hudson. That is why many of my colleagues around the state made the decision to add special education directors to their districts: administrators with specific expertise in special education. A sound decision for sure, one that I would unwise to second guess. Financially, it's not a heavy lift. 10% of the special education funding that flowed to the AEA can now be retained by individual districts ($29,329 for Hudson Schools next year). If you share that position with other school districts and pool the funds together, in essence it becomes cost neutral. Plus there is the added benefit of operational sharing incentives. 

Yet, when overtures to participate in a sharing arrangement for a special education director were made, I resisted. Not because I thought this wasn't a good idea. But because I thought it was first important to 'pop the hood' on our special education program. Before adding an additional layer of administration, I thought it first important to understand with clarity what exactly was happening in that program. And to be completely honest, an opportunity for us administrators to examine our blind spots when it comes to special education administration. So, we commissioned a study of the program, led by the AEA.

We started this process way back at the beginning of the school year by identifying exactly what it was we hoped to accomplish and why. It was also important to understand why our special education deficit was so high and if there were efficiencies that could be uncovered. During the course of this school year, we refined our scope and reviewed data metrics both internal and external. Teams observed our teachers delivering instruction. Examined the construct of IEPs. Conducted focus groups and administered surveys. And compared our data to peers.

The results. Well, they were quite impressive. We found that our identification rates are consistently below state averages and fairly stable across all buildings, with lower rates occurring at the high school. This is a positive finding because it suggests our educators have a strong problem solving process in place. When a student is experiencing difficulty in the classroom, special education should never be the first intervention. We have to ask the question: Is this a skill deficit, or a processing issue? If the answer is skill deficit, then special education is unlikely to yield the result desired. Further, lower identification rates at the high school suggests the overall program is performing as designed. The reason there are fewer students at the high school is because the service is no longer needed. Our goal is for students receiving special education services to not need them; and instead receive instruction in their least restrictive environment (LRE). 

Least restrictive environment then, is in regular class with their age appropriate peer group. Again, another bright spot for our program. Our LRE rate exceeds state targets, which indicates our special education students are in the regular classroom more that the statewide average. And with an exit rate of 7.5%, we are higher than that 4.5% exit rate realized statewide.

One of the findings that I was most proud of was in compliance. The majority of IEPs are finalized within 15 days of the scheduled meeting, and the observable data reveals implementation of specially designed instruction that has been outlined in the IEP is actually being delivered. This tells me that the developed plan is not offering mere platitudes, but delivering on promises and expectations. Additionally, the instruction truly is specialized and individual to each student, as opposed to 'more of the same' general instruction. 

Ensuring compliance with the law, designing quality instruction, and ensuring students are in the least restrictive environment means little unless we are moving the needle on student outcomes. Our analysis suggests that is the case. Students are exceeding statewide ISASP proficiency benchmarks for students with IEPs. Graduation rates surpass state rates. Dropout rates are consistent with those who do not have an IEP. 

One might think everything that has been highlighted as strengths in this column goes without saying. The fact is, they are not. During my time on the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners one of the most consistent issues we dealt with were teachers unable to properly manage the workload that comes with being a special education teacher. One of the first things to suffer is progress monitoring. We do not have that problem here. I had always believed our teachers were knocking it out of the park on a daily basis. Of course, I'm admittedly bias (and still not a special education teacher). Of course one would think that IEPs are well written and professional. Yet, I can attest to the fact that we have inherited some very low quality plans in the past; ones that our instructors have had to fix. 

The takeaway is that we have an outstanding special education program and can prove it. It is outstanding because of the professionals who are working with our students every day. Do we need an additional administrator to oversee this program? Absolutely not. However, there are a few tweaks that we can make in the program to make it even better, not only for our students but our teachers. We'll tackle some of those next week. In the meantime, if you are interested in reading the full report, please check it out on our website.