Seattle Special Ed PTSA Position Paper - very well done
February 26, 2010
Seeking More Inclusive Educational Services
Mission Statement: The Seattle Special Education PTSA is dedicated to assisting families of students with disabilities as they navigate the educational system, partnering with parents and educators as we advocate for improvements in special education, and building bridges between the general and special education communities to bring increased educational resources and opportunities for all students.
Executive Summary
Our PTSA endorses the inclusive concepts and vision of Integrated Comprehensive Services (ICS), the new model of special education service delivery that Seattle Public Schools is attempting to implement. The ICS model is intended to provide children the services indicated on their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) in general education classrooms in schools closer to home to the maximum extent possible. However, the components needed to implement ICS well are too weak or missing, resulting in some children not getting the services they need and not meeting with success. The net result has been to make the district move away – rather than toward – more inclusive educational practices.
After observing and participating in the new model for the past five months, we judge that the district has no shared vision, no authoritative leadership, and a lack of adequate resources to provide truly inclusive educational services. Although Executive Director of Special Education Services Marni Campbell has embraced the vision of inclusive education and represents that vision on the Superintendent’s leadership team, she is not sufficiently empowered to hold personnel accountable at the school level. Members of the central office special education staff show little commitment to inclusive services; some are not knowledgeable regarding ICS or lack the skills to promote its effective implementation, some are incompetent, and some are just waiting for ICS to go away. Moreover, Instructional Directors, Principals, teachers, and instructional assistants do not understand or share the vision of inclusive services, and general educators in particular have not taken ownership of the notion that it is their responsibility to teach to all learners.
The move to more inclusive education calls for a fundamental transformation of general education in Seattle. Overlaying a new model on an old system is inadequate. “The school district’s special education service delivery model must be dramatically overhauled with the emphasis on high expectations, inclusive educational practices, rigorous curriculum, differentiated instruction, and the development of a dynamic continuum of learning supports.”1 All district components need to share the vision of inclusive education and implement it, particularly along the general education chain of command. Although such a transformation in culture and practice takes time and resources, models exist now in the district’s inclusion programs and should serve as the foundation for ICS.
The following contains a discussion of our concerns and recommendations for measures the district should take to implement truly inclusive educational services.
1 Special Education: Organizational, Program, and Service Delivery Review – Seattle Public Schools: A Report of the External Core Team,” Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative Education Development Center, Inc. October 2007.
2
Discussion
Integrated Comprehensive Services (ICS) is a service-based model and, as designed by then-interim Director of Special Education Services Fred Row and then-Chief Academic Officer Carla Santorno, will eventually replace Seattle’s program-based model. The move to ICS flowed from the recommendations made by the outside audit of Seattle’s special education services completed in October 2007. In a Parent Communicator dated Feb. 12, 2009, the district said: “In an Integrated Service delivery model, both special and general educators at a specific grade level work together to support students with a range of differing needs. Such supports are based on the significance of a specific learning; they range from team-taught large group instruction, to co-planned, small, flexible learning groups, to one-to-one instruction in integrated school and community environments. In an integrated and comprehensive services model, students are placed in classes according to their natural proportions in the school. Assigning students in natural proportions sets the expectation that all school staff be able to teach to a range of students. The role of the special education teacher is initially to support students in these settings, but ultimately to build the general educator’s capacity to teach to a range of students.” (Emphasis added.) http://www.seattleschools.org/area/speced/parentcommunicator.pdf The district informed school staff members on April 10, 2009: “Comprehensive Integrated Services provided to buildings will depend on the students that enroll in each building and may look different between schools. Services will be based on the level of support individual students need. Enhanced support could include additional certificated teacher time, instructional assistant support, specialized materials and equipment, etc. Again, please note that students will not be placed in buildings if we are unable to provide the resources and staff support required to meet students’ needs. We will not be able to determine specific needs until the enrollment period closes and we review individual student applications. Please know that you will NOT be asked to serve students in a less restrictive setting without adequate resources!” (Emphasis added.)
Starting in September 2009, the ICS model was put in place for about 70 children in kindergarten and first grade in some 38 schools; existing inclusion programs were still available in grades 2 and above but slated to phase out over the next 3-5 years. The new model seems to work best in schools that received only one or two children with “mild” disabilities or in schools where the teachers and staff collaborate well and have formed teams to design creative, flexible service delivery methods. However, in some schools where more children enrolled under this model and/or had more complicated disabilities, problems occurred. In particular, students with Autism Spectrum disorders who formerly would have been served in an Autism Inclusion Program did not receive appropriate services and, in some cases, received punishment for exhibiting their behavioral disabilities. (Please see our report on a PTSA survey of families, Addendum A, for more information.)
Both our PTSA and SEAAC leaders meet on a monthly basis with the SPS Executive Director of Special Education Services Marni Campbell and appreciate the opportunity to discuss frankly the issues our members — including some teachers — have raised with us. Ms. Campbell is an enthusiastic, hard-working advocate of more inclusive services and has been proactive in addressing some of the concerns we have raised. However, there continues to be a disconnect between what the district outlines and what is happening in some schools and, although the district says some of the issues our members have raised with us are isolated cases, we view them as individual children falling through the cracks.
3
We are concerned that these cases point to systemic problems that will only grow as the ICS model is rolled out in more grades and more schools next year, resulting in more children falling through the cracks.
The deficiencies in ICS appear to stem largely from a lack of accountability, untrained or incompetent teachers/administrators, inadequate ratios of teachers to students, and the lack of a true continuum of services as mandated by federal law. In addition, the district’s failure to leverage school building strengths and proactively remedy building weaknesses is also to blame.
Accountability – Although the new model was designed and rolled out by the Special Education Services department, that department has no authority over principals and building staff. District Instructional Directors, who have direct authority over school building personnel, do not appear to be engaged in actively promoting a collaborative approach toward providing special education services nor aware of best practices in inclusive education. The evaluation process for principals and staff does not address how special education services are provided and their impact on student progress. Principal/staff decisions at two schools were overturned only when parents filed complaints or went through an appeal process; these cases were not addressed adequately or expeditiously at the district level.
The October 2007 external audit said, “Ownership and accountability for the education of students with disabilities must be a system priority, not a special education department priority alone..the system must have an agreed-upon set of non-negotiables with regard to school’s adherence to standards of law and best practices.” This statement remains true today.
Inexperience/Incompetence – In some cases, building administrators/staff and central office consulting teachers/supervisors have mismanaged the provision of services to children in the ICS model or misstated legal and/or procedural requirements. Kindergarteners and first graders have been suspended for behavior issues even though their disability included behavior disorders and they were not accorded services outlined in their IEP or Behavior Intervention Plan. School administrators, staff, and even central office personnel lack direct training on key provisions of federal legislation such as IDEA or 504 and make assertions that are in error about compliance issues or placement decisions. In addition, school staff members lack expertise on a variety of disability categories including provision of social skills training, positive behavior supports, and Autism Spectrum Disorders. Although the district is providing training in some of these areas, it is not mandated and appears limited in its effectiveness especially when time for planning and collaboration is in short supply.
The October 2007 external audit said, “The overall quality of special education services must be enhanced through professional development of special education and related services personnel, as well as general education leaders…the onus of student failure must be on the school, and any student failure must be viewed as something that is askew in the education system.” This statement remains true today.
Ratios – The new model was implemented with existing program ratios, which are set in the collective bargaining agreement with SEA, and the result has been separate and unequal delivery in regard to both the quality and quantity of special education services.
4
ICS students are served by a Resource Room teacher whose ratio is 1:22 (one special ed teacher; 22 students); additional support from an instructional assistant is often allocated. In contrast, children still in inclusion programs have much more favorable ratios. Specifically, Low Incidence A Inclusion has a ratio of 1:1:9 (one special ed teacher; one instructional assistant; nine students), and Autism Inclusion has a ratio of 1:2:8 (one special ed teacher; two instructional assistants; eight students). Up until this year, Resource Room teachers generally served children with learning disabilities in small math and reading groups in the Resource Room. Now, some Resource Room teachers have caseloads that are full or above the 1:22 ratio with some of those children requiring more intensive services to be provided in the general education classroom. Although the district has provided more resources to buildings with overloaded Resource Room teachers, parents report that these resources are in the form of Instructional Assistants or ICS Coaches with inadequate skills and/or itinerant schedules.
The October 2007 external audit said, “In such a model, the ratio of students to staff is based purely on numbers rather than on the needs of students…Although a significant change in service delivery, one that may affect contractual agreements, is difficult, we would be negligent to not expect it as a result of this analysis.” (Emphasis added.) This statement remains true today.
Lack of a Continuum – The uneven implementation of ICS means that, in many cases, families are given a choice of their child attending school in a general education classroom with inadequate services/support or being placed in a self-contained classroom. Federal law requires that school districts provide a full continuum of services for students with disabilities and provide those services in the Least Restrictive Environment: “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with children who are not disabled.” Seattle currently lacks a continuum of services in many schools. Some families with children in ICS classrooms are being told that the school cannot provide the level of service needed by their child in the general education classroom and that their child will need to be placed in a self-contained setting. What happened to the district’s promise of “co-planned, small, flexible learning groups…one-to-one instruction in integrated school and community environments”? In fact, the district has told families of new elementary risers that their options for the 2010-11 school year are Resource Room, Resource Room with ICS, or Self-Contained services. “Inclusion” programs are only offered to elementary children in grades 2-5. Furthermore, the plan is to progressively phase out “inclusion” programs and replace that service delivery model with ICS.
The October 2007 external audit said, “Students with disabilities have an equal right to content-based instruction within the general education environment…Both special and general education teachers must use flexible heterogeneous grouping patterns throughout the day, depending on the instructional content and student needs.” This statement remains true today.
The deficiencies enumerated above speak to the failure to leverage school building strengths and proactively remedy building weaknesses. Some schools have demonstrated creative methods of staffing and teaming to teach to a range of learners. Many dedicated educators reside in our schools and seek to improve their skill base to serve our children better. Moreover, the district has a pool of expertise on inclusion practices — including schools where inclusion is working well — and needs to build on this foundation.
5
The Inclusion Programs, which Seattle Public Schools is gradually phasing out as ICS is phased in, are a good model for inclusive services and should be propagated – not eliminated — throughout the district for children with a range of disabilities. The inclusion programs provide children with disabilities the opportunity to participate in general education classrooms to the greatest extent possible while still providing them with needed supports. Children in these programs have special education teachers who have expertise in their disability. These teachers are able to implement strategies, provide support, modify instructional materials, and make recommendations on accommodations to the general educator teacher. Children currently in ICS need the supports afforded to children in inclusion programs while children in self-contained classrooms need the opportunity to access general education curriculum with their “typical” peers. A truly inclusive service delivery model would produce such a continuum.
In these tough economic times, it is easy to say “we just don’t have the funding to provide the resources needed” for truly inclusive services; however, it is wrong. Federal law mandates that students with disabilities receive special education services alongside their peers to the greatest extent possible; this is not happening now in Seattle Public Schools. Inclusive education is not fundamentally a change in special education; it is fundamentally a change in general education – all children will benefit. The October 2007 external audit said, “In the aggregate, the External Core Team’s recommendations are far-reaching and require a dramatic shift in the way in which many Seattle educators currently view students with disabilities, special education, and the supports that students with and without disabilities need in order to succeed…while a beginning has been made, there is an urgency to accelerating the adoption and implementation of next steps.” This statement remains true today.
Recommendations
The October 2007 external audit said, “School district and building-level leaders must forcefully and consistently challenge this culture (of low expectations for students receiving special education services); without a change of expectation, all other school district efforts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities and for other traditionally marginalized groups of students will have minimal impact.”
To this statement, which remains true today, we would add the following recommendations for specific measures that the district should take to move Seattle closer to truly inclusive educational services: The Special Education Services department needs to be a key link in the chain of command with regard to building personnel and policy decisions. The Special Education Services department needs to engage in more dialogue with teachers and staff at the building level to deepen the understanding of inclusive practices and to seek input with regard to the perceived impediments to such practices at each school. Instructional Directors should be participants in this process. The manner in which special education services are provided and their impact on student progress need to be part of the evaluation process for principals and staff. Mandatory professional development specifically addressing IDEA and 504 requirements should be provided as soon as possible. Mandatory professional development on the range of disability categories served by our schools should be implemented on a priority basis.
6
The Special Education Services department should be a repository of expertise on specific disabilities and the appropriate interventions to employ in the school setting. In addition, the Special Education Services department should be a repository of expertise on the legal and procedural requirements of federal and state law regarding individuals with disabilities. The district should establish a well-designed and responsive system for allocating more certificated special education staff when that support is necessary. Training and hiring practices must ensure that Instructional Assistants are qualified for their jobs. Ratios should not be determined by collective bargaining. They should be determined by the level of service needed by each child at the school. Instead of 1:22 for Resource Room/ICS, the ratio should be closer to the 1:10 ratio recommended by the outside audit of Seattle’s special education services commissioned by the Superintendent in 2007. Ideally, there should be a formula that determines the ratio needed based on the services indicated on the IEP of each student attending a particular school. Collective bargaining could define or place parameters on such a formula. The district should deliver the model promised in February 2009 by providing a range of practices from team-taught large group instruction to co-planned, small flexible learning groups, to one-to-one instruction in integrated school and community environments. ICS should support students up to and including the level of support provided to students under the inclusion models that are being phased out. Funds to support better ratios and expertise-building are essential and any consideration of funding cuts to the most vulnerable of our students is unacceptable.
Comments
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
