Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTask Force on Special Education rpt.pdf • Summary of the REPORT of the TASK FORCE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION The Report of the Task Force on Special Education consists of 29 pages of text and 24. pages of appendices, of which 13 pages are charts and tables. This summary is offered as a condensed version and will, of necessity, not provide all the background upon which to make conclusions. Copies of the complete report may be found at the Reference Department of Cary Memorial Library. The Task Force encourages all who are interested to review the entire report and/or to contact the Task Force Chair with questions or comments. The Task Force on Special Education: Susan A. Elberger, Chair; Neal Boyle; Sue Cusack; Linda Howard; David L. Kaufman; John Ryan; Jane Pagett, Liaison to the Appropriation Committee Overview The programmatic and financial challenges to providing special education services are growing. As the overall number of students in Lexington has increased, the number of students with special educational needs has increased as well. There is a widely-discussed perception that parents of children needing special education move to Lexington to avail themselves of these services. To whatever extent this"migration" happens, it becomes difficult to differentiate between the parents of special needs children moving here for the excellent special education services and the parents who move here to access the excellent regular educational system. Lexington, along with all other school districts in Massachusetts, is required by both state and Federal law to provide a free and appropriate public education, in the least restrictive environment, to students with special needs from 3 to 22 years of age. Students must meet the dual criteria of a disability in conjunction with the failure to progress in regular education in order to receive special education services. Once a student has met the dual criteria , the school and the student's family work as a team to design an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Because there are some students who might benefit from services but do not meet the criteria for special education, some school systems have begun to offer services under "504" plans (from Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973). For example, the physically handicapped student who is making effective progress in regular education might need special transportation. A 504 plan would document the need and describe the services. Another option is the even less formal regular education plan. Regular education plans are being written by some schools to acknowledge the need for short-term intervention and support. The option of moving to an evaluation and a possible IEP 1 remains, but the need is met rather quickly, and the complicated, lengthy, and expensive involvement of special education is avoided. The increase in costs is largely attributable to the rising number of students in the schools and to inflation. Our research indicates that when the costs are adjusted for these factors, the cost for special education in Lexington has essentially remained flat from FY90 to FY95. (See attached Chart 9) Despite the stable costs, the Task Force believes that there is room for improvement in the implementation of special education services in Lexington. The recommendations attached will require the collaborative efforts of educators and parents in order to create meaningful change. If those recommendations can be achieved, the high quality of service can be maintained and, over the long run, costs savings can be expected. THE SPECIAL EDUCATION POPULATION Student Population Growth: Growth in the regular day program headcount in Lexington has been consistent with the other communities in the study. However, Lexington's growth in its special education headcount far outpaces the increases seen in the comparison communities. Lexington's special education headcount-has _ increased by 30.1 %, with Belmont showing the next highest increase of 5.6% over 5 years, from 1990 to 1995. (See Table 1) Age, Sex, and School Distribution: Using a system-wide headcount, the largest concentration of students in Lexington use special education services between the ages of eight and twelve years. (See Chart 1 for Lexington special education student distribution by age and sex.) The total headcount of children receiving special education services in FY 95 is 1 070. Of this total, 699 are boys and 371 are girls. (See Chart 2 for the distribution by school of special education students attending the Lexington Public Schools.) Single Special Education Service Recipients: Given the legal requirement of dual criteria to receive special education services, the Task Force is concerned about the number of students receiving single services through special education programs, particularly when that single service is a therapy. If these students do not meet the dual criteria, a 504 or regular education plan would be a more appropriate way to meet these students' needs. 7 CURRENT PRACTICES Prereferral Process: If a student experiences difficulty in a regular education program, an effort is made to alleviate that difficulty in the regular education classi oonmi. Although the right to refer a child to special education cannot be circumvented at any time, the implementation of prereferral strategies offers an opportunity to prevent student failure and help the student succeed in regular education. The process helps teachers to explore modifications, strategies and materials needed to support students in regular education programs.. Between 5/20/94 and 1/23/95, there were 207 referrals to special education in Lexington. The same measurement taken this year, between 5/20/95 and 1/23/96, indicates that 146 referrals were made, a reduction of sixty-one referrals or 29%. This significant reduction in referrals to the special education program is attributed largely to increased effectiveness of the prereferral process, which has been a priority. Staff Rotes; Classroom teachers are responsible for the general education of all their students, whether or not they have special needs. In most cases, classroom teachers are doing at least an adequate- and in many cases, outstanding- job in these areas. There is, however, a lack of a system-wide belief that all teachers are expected to respond to a variety of learning tneeds,-and even an occasional belief that the classroom teacher is not responsible for children on IEPs. Special educators perform a variety of tasks, including providing direct services such as speech therapy; providing support and expertise with regard to curriculum adaptation and instructional techniques; coordination of services for children; staffing resource rooms; and participating in team meetings. The increasing use of special educators' time to attend to administrative details and paperwork is disturbing, and could be done by a clerical staff member. Tutors are generally assigned to work with a specific child through the IEP. Usually they work with the classroom teacher to provide support to the classroom as a whole. Tutors occasionally appear to be "shadows" of children on IEPs, a practice that may not be as useful or effective as is thought in many circumstances. It would make sense to consider assigning tutors when appropriate for the aggregate needs of the classroom. Tutors have no job descriptions, do not get evaluated, and are unclear- as are other staff members- as to who supervises them directly. These problems are caused primarily by the lack of funds for supervisory staff to fulfill these functions Administrators participate in the development of IEPs; communicate with parents, specialists, and regulatory and/or government agencies; manage budgets; and offer leadership in these areas. Most of them do well in their jobs, but the lack of consistency from school to school is disturbing. There is no reason to feel that every situation in every school must be handled in exactly the same way; rather, an acceptance and valuing of the variation in school "cultures" can be an exciting and positive thing. When that variation leads to inconsistencies in the quality of the 3 services delivered rather than the style in which they are delivered, there is cause for concern. Professional Development: There are many pockets of outstanding teaching and supervision in Lexington, yet there is a lack of commitment to the dissemination of these skills and techniques to all staff. To date, no system-wide efforts have been made to require system-wide staff development about different learning styles and teaching techniques. This lack of consistency has made efforts for continuity in instruction and service delivery ineffective for the Lexington public schools as a whole. This lack of consistency is demonstrated in the differences among schools in decisions concerning how to assess a child's learning issues, the prereferral process, the structure and use of teams and team meeting times, the type and manner of delivery of services, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of services. Most critically, it results in confusion and lack of trust among the parties concerned. Given that the inclusion model has only been a major focus in special education for the last four years, some staff members may not have received any significant amount of professional training in teaching students with diverse learning neads or styles. Continuum of Service from Regular through Special Education: The expected continuum of services between regular and special education unfortunately doesn't appear to exist as effectively as the Task Force might hope. Interviews with teachers, administrators, and parents indicate that in some cases, children who have real but mild learning needs cannot have those addressed without special education programs. The reasons appear to include the lack of system-wide commitment mentioned above, the lack of sufficient professional development in diverse learning needs, and the absence of sufficient regular education support staff. An example of the absence of a continuum of services is that of a child having problems with reading. If the student is in first grade, the Reading Recovery program is available to all children. If the student is in another grade, however, there may not be enough resources available for the student to receive help with reading unless the student is referred to special education. In the last ten years, curriculum coordination staff has been cut back by 60% and central administration staff has been cut by 25%. The loss of these specialists and resource staff members has meant that there is often no alternative method of providing services to students in need other than referring them to special education. The Concord Public Schools have undertaken a major effort to enhance the quality of education in a way that reduces the number of students on IEPs while not reducing the level or kind of service provided to them. They strictly comply with the dual criteria requirement while also ensuring that children are receiving needed services. It has led to a 47% decrease in the number of elementary students on IEPs from 19% in 1990 to 10% in 1995. On the secondary level, at Concord Carlisle Regional High School, 17% were on IEPs in 1990, compared to 13% in 1995, for a drop of 24%. This effort demanded extensive work in creating and maintaining levels of trust between staff 4 members and parents. Many of these students, formerly on IEPs, now receive their needed services through regular and 504 education plans. The school system avoids special education costs primarily by not having to pay for staff time during TEAM meetings and to complete paperwork. THE COST The Massachusetts Dept. of Education End of Year Pupil and Financial Report . was chosen as the data source because it was assumed to be most consistent. However, it became apparent in compiling the data not only that school districts differed from each other in how they classified certain expenses, but also that there were inconsistencies from year to year within the same district. Despite these shortcomings, the Task Force wanted to show some comparative cost data so that the Lexington special education program could be placed in the context of programs in surrounding and/or similar communities. During the five-year period (FY90 through FY95), school expenditures in the town of Lexington increased by 24.3%, or a dollar growth of $7,474,055. This percentage increase is the second highest among.the six communities, with Wayland showing a higher percentage increase of 32.3%, and a dollar increase of $4,425,657. In Lexington, the percentage increase in total expenditures appears to be attributable to several factors. including increased enrollment, the inclusion of the cost of benefits in school salaries, and the impact of inflation on several program elements, especially salary growth. Instructional Services: This part of the schedule reflects increased costs for teachers, supervisors, guidance, and psychological services professionals, as well as for textbooks, instructional equipment, and instructional hardware and software. These schedules reflect increased staff levels and educational supplies to handle additional enrollments. Regular Education During the five-year period (FY90 through FY95), Lexington's growth was $5,692,953, or 43.9%;, Wayland's growth was $2,281,431, or 36.5%, and Andover's was $2,705,409 in this category, for an increase of 22.7%. Lexington's policy concerning class size explains at least part of our high position in this category. Specia' Education Of the comparison group, Lexington has the greatest increase in instructional costs including salaries paid to its special educators, i.e., teachers, administrators and supporting staff. The Lexington percentage increase in this category, 76.7% or $1,927,626 is high, but partially reflects the staff hired to educate the additional 30% in the special education population. None of the other communities have an enrollment increase of this magnitude. 5 Other Special Education Costs: The costs analyzed in this category include out- of-district tuition, transportation and psychological costs. Supervisory: Lexington's increase over five years in this category is the largest, at 119.4%. The community with the second largest increase is Wayland at 75%. As far as can be determined without a major audit, a significant part of Lexington's increase appears to be may be an accounting shift apportioning more secretarial and clerical staff to this line. expenses currently covered in this line item include salaries for the Director of Special Education, 2 secretaries in the Special Education Department, a secretary at Lexington High School, clerical staff needed to complete IEP paperwork; and consultants services including legal; printing, office supplies, and travel for administrative staff; and computers, software, and teaching supplies. • Teaching: Lexington's increase of 59.9% in this category is second to Wayland's of 69.5% for the same time period. Psychological: Lexington's expenditures increased 97.4% over the five-year period, second to Bedford's increase of 146%. Outside tuition: Lexington has shown relatively slow growth in this area over the five- year period, with an increase of 14.5% This rate of growth reflects the.policy-of • inclusion, which one would expect to reduce outside tuition growth over time. Per Pupil Costs; Two of the comparison towns. Bedford and Andover. have special education per-pupil costs higher than Lexington's which, at $9,951, is only slightly above the average of all 6 towns. Although Lexington compares favorably on a per-pupil cost basis, we can expect to see increases in this measurement if more students are serviced in regular education programs, including 504, as recommended by this Task Force. Such a policy would leave fewer students in special education, but the average level of need for each remaining student would be higher than among those receiving services now. Overall, however, the special education costs would be likely to decrease over time. (See Charts 10 and 11) Offsets to Special Education Costs: Lexington recovers a small percentage of its special education costs from Federal entitlement grants which are distributed through the state government. This totaled $349,440 in FY95 under entitlement grant 91-142, Lexington Special Services, which amounted to $415 per student. In addition, we received $46,800 under an early childhood grant for 3, 4, and 5-year-olds, which reimbursed at $600 per student. These revenues are directly accessible to the school department but in accounts separate from the school budget accounts. In prior years, Lexington received additional entitlement grants which are no longer available. These totaled $57,370 in FY95. • 6 Over the last 2 years, Lexington Public Schools have made a significant effort at recovering some of the costs of special education services provided to students by billing Medicaid for the services. Major efforts to collect Medicaid funds began in the middle of FY95. During FY95 $76,731 was recovered. This year, as of 12 March 1996, $111,174 has been recovered. These funds are placed in the general fund, not in the school budget. The expenses, however, are paid out of school operating funds. Budgeting for Special Education: Budgeting for special education is an ongoing challenge. Litigation, unexpected new students requiring services, transferring students, and spiraling private placement tuitions combine to increase the volatility of special education costs and the ability to predict those costs. A FINAL WORD It has become apparent to the Task Force that the resources of the school department are being stretched severely. The commitment to serve an increasing number of students in both regular and special education is a strong priority in this community. The Task Force strongly suggests that we incorporate some of the successful models developed by other school systems. These systems adhere closely to both the letter and spirit of the law, yet they seem to be able to moderate cost growth and provide for the needs of all students. We are particularly impressed by the use of the prereferral process and 504 plan in Concord. The Concord model allows the school to rapidly respond to children in need of specific services without incurring the costs of developing a full TEAM evaluation and IEP before providing the child with assistance, in large part due to the enhancement of their regular education program supports. In Lexington, the automatic repetition of all assessments every three years needs to be rethought. Clearly, there are some sections of the evaluation that must be done. However, in many cases it is neither necessary nor useful to repeat the full battery of tests. Parents and educators should decide together what makes sense with regard to testing. We believe that Lexington can improve the implementation of its special education services. The recommendations that follow reflect our understanding of other models and practices, as well as our faith in the ability of our system to build on its solid base of excellence. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Our research and discussions have led to agreement on the following recommendations. 1. Recognize the right of all children to get the help they need to do well in school, while simultaneously recognizing that special education may not be the appropriate setting to receive that help. We are supportive of the movement toward inclusion while understanding that the "least restrictive environment" may not be the same for every child. 2. Comply with the legal criteria that both a disability and failure to progress in regular education must be present in order to receive special education services. One of these alone is insufficient. Children who are not making educational progress but do not have a disability are not eligible for special education services. 3. Implement the use of 504 plans and regular education supports, such as are used in Concord Public Schools. 4. Comply with state and Federal definitions of "related services", providing only those services required for a student to access his/her special education program. 5. Continue to strengthen the use of the prereferral process to attempt interventions that may be provided within the structure of regular education services. 6. Report data regarding special education costs, student population, and services provided in a consistent way from year to year. 7. Develop and implement standards for all staff to respond to the educational needs and learning styles of a diverse student body. Significant professional development in both teaching techniques and the laws is required 8. Strengthen regular education options, services, and strategies so that special education resources are reserved for those who meet the dual criteria. Provide stronger support services for regular education staff, by encouraging collaboration with curriculum coordinators, subject area specialists, and special educators acting as consultants. 9. Develop and disseminate explicit criteria for determining the need for tutors to school personnel and parents. Consider assigning tutors for the aggregate needs of the classroom. Require system-wide consistency regarding when a tutor is needed. 8 10.Develop job descriptions for tutors, specifying plans for their training, supervision, and evaluation. Establish a clear understanding of how they are expected to work with other staff members, students, and their families. 11 .Expect all teachers to be actively responsible for all the students in their .classrooms. To accomplish this, a system-wide culture must be developed which presumes that all teachers will share equally in the responsibility of educating students with disabilities. Throughout the system, there are clear patterns of inequitable distribution and placement of students with disabilities. While most teachers embrace children with special needs in their classrooms, a small number, known to parents, colleagues, and administrators, does not. This practice is not acceptable. 12.Take active steps to increase the level of trust between parents and teachers, since it is clear that the tone for the ongoing relationship between parents and staff is established during the earliest contacts. It can be too easy for educators and parents to see each other as adversaries rather than as partners, resulting in less than effective educational services to children. TEAM members, both parents and professionals, need to deal sensitively with each other, and to establish trust and rapport. The new Manual of Inclusive Education, developed jointly by parents and the school department, may be helpful in this regard 13.Encourage parents to develop a network, perhaps through the Special Needs Parent Advisory Council (PAC). to provide support for parents as well as to help inform them of their rights and responsibilities. School personnel would be expected to inform parents of this network and encourage them to use it 14.Engage parents, perhaps with the help of the PAC, in developing their roles as partners in support of the education system. 15.Ensure that parents and educators understand the purpose of updating IEPs . It may not be necessary to do the full battery of evaluations each time the IEP is due for updating, and may be in the child's best interest to not undergo extensive testing if the child's needs are clear to and agreed upon by both parents and staff. 16.Be willing to go to hearing on disputed IEPs in situations where the school department is confident of its case, understanding at the same time that hearings are expensive and likely to produce feelings of ill will. 17.Write IEPs, with clear, measurable, achievable, and appropriate goals, which can be used as tools by parents and teachers to assess program effectiveness and student progress. 18.Become more knowledgeable and aggressive in pursuing Medicaid reimbursement. Train TEAM chairpersons regarding policies and procedures for identifying Medicaid eligibility. Encourage parents' cooperation in this effort. 9 Chart 9. Special Education Instructional Costs by Year Adjusted for Inflation and Headcount 4,500,000 T •4,000,000 3,500,000 m /. 3,000,000 a 2,500,000 - a� -- Instructional Cost- o 2,000,000 Actual $ Inflation Adjusted C 1,500,000 _ Cost .A Headcount Adjusted Cost 1,000,000 Inflation & Headcount Adj. 500,000 j Cost 0 1 I i 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 School Year 47