District 89 Final Report Sandi Cole

8/15/2019 District 89 Final Report Sandi Cole

1/20

1

Program Review

Special Education Services

District 89

June 27, 2013

Submitted by: Sandi Cole, Ed.D.

Indiana University

Introduction

Evaluation is defined as the systematic investigation of the worth or merit of an object (e.g.

a program, school activity or instructional material). The most important purpose of an evaluation

is not to prove, but to improve. Program evaluations provide an opportunity for feedback over a

span of time that can be used to improve the quality and effectiveness of services and activities. It

is meant to be a functional activity; one in which evaluation results can be used in making decisions

and earning credibility for stakeholders and others with an interest and need to know.

For District 89, a process in which the evaluation outcomes represent meaningful

constructions that individual stakeholders form to “make sense” of the current program and

services was proposed. This type of program evaluation rests on two elements: the first is

determining what questions are to be asked and what information is to be collected on the basis of

stakeholders input. The second element unites the evaluator and the stakeholders in an interaction

that creates the product of the evaluation. The areas of focus and information to be gathered are

determined at the initial meeting or interview; the product will emerge from the interviews,

observations, and review of other documents and data.

To develop this “picture”, individual stakeholders were asked to participate in focus groups

or group interviews. These stakeholders included parents and special and general educators.

Additionally, Central Office Administration, Principals, and the Superintendent were interviewed.

Documents and other data were requested throughout the evaluation. Observations of nearly every

special education classroom occurred. The evaluation spanned pre-school through K-8 programs.

Based on an initial conversation with the Superintendent, the evaluation focused on the

following areas:

The achievement of students with disabilities in the district

The efficacy and effectiveness of the service delivery model in the district

Access to the general education curriculum and the least restrictive environment


2/20

2

The utilization and adequacy of staff

The roles and relationships of special education teachers

The building of relationships and communications with parents

The effectiveness of decision making and problem solving structures

The effect of service delivery on the total school population

Professional development needs

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment practices in core academic areas

It is important to note that these recommendations are grounded in the thoughts, ideas, and

concerns of the stakeholders. The design meets the applicable sections of The Joint Committee on

Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994, within the following four areas:

Utility: To ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users.

Feasibility: To ensure that an evaluation is realistic, prudent, diplomatic and frugal.

Propriety: To ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due

regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its

results.

Accuracy: To ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate

information about the features that determine the worth or merit of the program being

evaluated.

A procedure called triangulation was used to develop this report. Triangulation refers to the

strategy of using several different kinds of data collection instruments to explore an issue orproblem (Borg & Gall, 1989). Triangulation of data is critically important in audits such as the one

done for District 89. As particular pieces of information came to light, steps were taken to validate

each against at least one other source (for example a second interview) and/or a second method

(for example, an observation or review of documents in addition to an interview). No single item of

information was given serious consideration for this report unless it was triangulated (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985).

Commendations

The district has new leadership at all levels of the organization. Specifically, the

Superintendent and newly hired Director of Special Education bring new ideas and new

direction for special education programming. Caroline Pate-Hefty is a good addition to the

district. In conducting this evaluation, it became clear that most of the concerns noted in

this report have been long-standing issues in the district. District leadership, including the


3/20

3

Board of Education should be commended for commissioning an external review to bring

these concerns forward.

There is new leadership in many of the Principal positions. Many of these individuals have

had experiences in other districts with inclusionary practices and should be of value as the

recommendations of this report are considered.

There is evidence that the central office administrative team is working in a collaborative

fashion to address the issues of District 89.

There is a clear message from special education leadership that teachers and special

education classrooms will provide students access to the general education curriculum.

The district has standards based IEP’s.

There are many fine examples of caring and highly competent educators in District 89.

The district has staffed Social Workers for every building.

The caseloads of special educators, while not always balanced across the district, are

appropriate.

Overall the district is well staffed with special education personnel.

The observations and recommendations in this report are based on the classroom observations,

interviews, focus groups and document data gathered during the onsite visits. Throughout the days

of onsite visits, all school staff members were open, honest and cooperative. They were welcoming

and open to interviews and observations. Everyone is to be commended for this.

Observations, Conclusions and Recommendations

Efficiency and Effectiveness of Special Education Service Delivery Models

While there are certainly exceptions throughout the district, there appears to be a general lack

of willingness to share the responsibility to teach all students. A dual system of education—special

and general education—seems to exist in District 89. Individuals across the district had a difficult

time answering the question: What is the vision and direction of special education in District 89? It

appears that the special education component of District 89 has not recently been involved in any

long range planning. In all of the interviews and focus group discussions, no one could articulatewhere special education was headed in the next five years or how special education fit within the

overall mission and vision of the district.

Early in this review, it became clear to this evaluator that every building has created its own

version of what special education should be. As my interviews and observations unfolded, this

belief was validated. There is little cohesiveness or consistency between and among the 10 schools


4/20

4

in the district. They differ in training, in attitudes, in leadership and in types and degree of services.

For example, a student on an IEP could be educated primarily in general education classrooms in

one building, move to another building with the same IEP and have a totally different experience in

how services are delivered. Every building appears to be an autonomous “island” with respect to

special education, with little cohesive planning and problem solving occurring across buildings.

There are many examples of a dual system of education—special and general education—in

District 89. There were often references to “my kids” and “their kids” which would indicate that

there is not a belief that students with disabilities are the responsibility of all staff. There was a

sense among many special education personnel that they bear most of the responsibility for the

education of students with disabilities and that some general education personnel preferred not

having students with disabilities in their classrooms. Additionally, at the district and building level,

Title 1, Bi-lingual and Special Education programs operate in silos, with little collaboration across

programs.

There is a critical need to unify the two systems to ensure greater collaboration and coherence

at the district, school and classroom levels. Without this unification, the delivery of services to

students with disabilities, as well as students at risk for failure, will continue to be fragmented and

disconnected. This will not result in increased student achievement.

Least Restrictive Environment

The delivery of special education services has changed dramatically in Illinois and across the

country in the past ten years. Early on, the changes were initiated within the special education field

and by special education legislation, but more recently the forces for change have come from inside

and outside education. After many years of operating as a separate system and with the belief that

the educational needs of children with disabilities could best be met by teaching them in a separate

environment, it became clear that this model was not effective. Special education is more of a

support system than a separate system and students with disabilities must have access to the

general education curriculum and, to the maximum extent appropriate, access to the general

education classroom.

There are a few examples in some schools of inclusive practices (the use of the term “inclusive

practices” in this document refers to words such as “flex”, “push in”, and “inclusion”). However,

schools modeling or beginning to support inclusive practices were in the minority. Pulling students

out of general education and separating them for instruction is a common practice in District 89. It

is my observation that many more students with disabilities in District 89 could be educated in the

general education classroom for all or most of the school day. It is also my observation that many


5/20

5

teachers believe that they currently do not have the necessary skills or training to make this happen

and, in some cases, do not believe that students with disabilities can progress or learn in general

education. There exists in District 89 little understanding of current research that would indicate

otherwise (see Waldron & Cole, 2000).

There is also inconsistency with how the resource program operates from building to

building. There were varied answers to my question, “What is the purpose of the resource room?”

Some students use the resource time to focus on homework completion. Some resource rooms are

replicating programs and services of a self contained setting. Some felt that services in the resource

room were intended to replace curriculum in the general education classroom while others

believed that the resource room should simply supplement the curriculum and instruction in the

general education classroom.

There appears to be no clear guidelines as to how the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

for any student is determined and this is particularly true for the students who end up in a PAEC

program. For students who receive services in one of the most restrictive environments as a

separate school, the IEP’s need to justify this placement with thorough documentation. When

decisions are made to place students at PAEC the IEP team must adequately document that

education in a less restrictive environment with “supplementary aids and supports” (IDEA) was not

successful. There are several sources for guidance in this area:

A Policy statement on Least Restrictive Environment from the Illinois State Board of

Education (Feb. 2000) states that the ISBE “will monitor programs and institutions thatserve students with disabilities to ensure that the first placement option considered is a

regular education environment, with use of supplemental aids and services as needed”. It

further states that the IEP team “must be able to justify a more restrictive option in terms of

the LRE provisions and needs of the student.”

This same policy statement adds, “Students with disabilities should not be removed from

placement in an age appropriate regular classroom solely because modifications or

supports or services may be required in the general education curriculum or for

administrative convenience”.In interviews with the administration at PAEC, there are currently 108.5 students from District

89 being served in PAEC programs. (See Table 1) Table 2 represents the disability categories being

served at PAEC.


6/20

6

Table 1:

Program Total

students

Students with moderate

disabilities (MIT program)

14

Students with multiple/severe

disabilities

23.5

Students with Autism 19

Students with mild disabilities

(MIE program)

25

Alternative Day Program

(behaviors)

27

Total D89 students 108.5

Table 2: Students at PAEC programs:

Intellectual

Disab.

Learning

Disab.

Emotional

Disab.

Autism Devlop.

Delay

Multiple

Disabilities

Other

PAEC

Alternative

1 20 1 22

PAEC Educ.Center

2 2

PAEX

Exceptional

Child Cntr

8 14 13 9 2 46

PAEC

Academy

24 1 5 3 1 34

Total 33 1 20 19 19 9 3 104

The administration at PAEC indicated that historically there have been challenges to

educating this group of students in District 89 and that in fact, there were more students being

referred this year to PAEC than in the past. They also noted that while some students do return to

District 89 (primarily from the alternative program), the District has been pushing students their

way.


7/20

7

It appears that for students with significant disabilities, the only option is the PAEC

program, which is the most restrictive. There is not a step on the continuum in District 89 that

would allow a student to be placed in a separate special education classroom within an integrated,

general education building. Therefore, students end up at PAEC by “default”; PAEC is the default

placement for students with more significant disabilities because there is not a placement option

within the district. Because of the placement at PAEC, students have little opportunity for

integration with non-disabled peers at “naturally occurring times and places” (lunch, recess,

hallways, art, music etc) in which general education students would be interacting. A self contained,

separate classroom in an integrated school building would allow for this natural interaction to take

place. There is a preponderance of evidence across the country that students with the most intense

needs can be educated in an age appropriate, integrated school building.

Also at issue is the proportion of students with disabilities in District 89 being educated in a

separate school placement (EE 4: 100% of time in a separate public school). Depending on the

report reviewed, 108 of 750 students (15.8%), or 104 out of 658 (14.4%) of students with

disabilities in District 89 are in this environment. The state average in this category is 3.9%. It

appears, in looking at the 2010-11 Special Education Profile for the district (pulled from

WebReports, Illinois State Board of Education website) that because the students are members of

PAEC, a separate cooperative, that the high percentage doesn’t show on the district profile. This was

confirmed in a conversation with a consultant at the ISBE who shared that the money follows the

child, and since all IDEA money for District 89 flows through PAEC, the students will not show on

the District 89 profile. This may also be the reason that the state has not cited the district.

Nonetheless, the percentage exceeds state target of 3.9% for the number of students from any one

district being served in a separate school. The state also does LRE monitoring, and that review

would note the high number of District 89 students in a separate school.

One fact regarding the placement of District 89 students at PAEC that this evaluator found

most concerning is that PAEC operates classrooms (that have District 89 students placed in them)

in two integrated elementary settings: Whittier Elementary D87 and Northlake Middle School. This

means that District 89 students are placed into PAEC programs and then sent to an integrated

school outside of their district. If theses students can be placed in an integrated public school

outside of the district, what is preventing them from being educated in a program in their home

district?


8/20

8

In looking at the data from the same ISBE district profile, it is also clear that the district has

a much higher percentage of students being served in the restrictive category of less than 40% time

in general education. (See Table 3)

Table 3:

2010 2011

% Time Inside

General Ed

Separate

Facility

% Time Inside

General Ed

Separate

Facility

>79% 40-

79%

79% 40-

79%


9/20

9

criteria for students to be placed in the self contained classrooms?” the response was often that the

student was not at grade level with their peers, had behavior issues and/or they were not making

significant progress. The conversation for placing students into self-contained programs seemed to

have more to do with the student deficits, rather than a conversation regarding the services and

supports that were needed to keep the student in a general education setting with access to the

general education curriculum. To use “behavior” as a reason for placing a student with a significant

learning disability in a more restrictive placement is problematic; if behavior was the primary

disability, then it is more likely that the student would be identified as having an emotional

disability.

There are examples across the district of special and general educators co-teaching.

However, co-teaching looks different across grade levels and across schools in D89. And the

purpose of co-teaching also varies. For the most part, it is the resource teacher who is co-teaching.

It is not a model that is used to include more students with disabilities from self contained settings.

It is clear when looking at the data that there are very few students with disabilities who

have intellectual disabilities being served in the district (see Table 4). The majority (68%) of

students with disabilities served in District 89 are students with Learning Disabilities and

Speech/Language disabilities. This group of students should be spending most of their time in

general education environments, accessing the general education curriculum.

Table 4:

IntellectualDisab.

LearningDisab.

Speech/Language Emot.Disabl.

Other

Emerson 3 32 19 2 12 68

Garfield 4 24 12 0 11 51

Irving 5 32 20 2 33* 92

Jane Adams 0 20 13 1 7 41

Lexington 4 12 10 2 5 33

Lincoln 3 37 19 3 8 70

Mel. Park 2 35 32 2 17 88

Roosevelt 1 19 11 3 52* 86

Stevenson 2 43 31 3 17 96

Washington 0 15 14 2 2 33

Total 24 269 181 20 164 658

* A large number of students identified as Developmentally Delayed


10/20

10

This evaluator also has a concern when disaggregating the data by building. For example,

there are some buildings with a larger number of students being served in the more restrictive

placements than other buildings. (See Table 5) This is an indication of how each building is defining

and operating special education programs without clear, consistent direction across the district.

Table 5: From: Illinois State Board of Education School Year 2012-13

(Generated by IePoint on 2/25/2013)

EE 1:

Inside the

general

education

classroom

80% or

more of

the day

EE 2:

Inside the

general

education

classroom

40-79% or

more of

the day

EE 3:

Inside the

general

education

classroom

less than

40% of the

day

EE 4:

100%

Special

Education

Separate

public

school

EE 8:

Private

Day

School

EE 11:

Home-

bound

Inst.

Emerson 37 (60.7) 1 (1.6) 18 (29.5) 5 (8.2)

Garfield 47 (48.0) 3 (3.1) 40 (40.8) 7 (7.1) 1 (1.0)

Irving 38 (44.7) 1 (1.2) 39 (45.9) 7 (8.2)

Jane Adams 52 (82.5) 1 (1.6) 7 (11.1) 3 (4.8)

Lexington 33 (47.1) 1 (1.4) 25 (35.7) 10 (14.3) 1 (1.4)

Lincoln 59 (67.0) 2 (2.3) 19 (21.6) 6 (6.8) 2 (2.3)

Melrose

Park

93 (62.8) 5 (3.4) 35 (23.6) 14 (9.5) 1 (0.7)

Roosevelt 45 (60.0) 1 (1.3) 22 (29.3) 6 (8.0) 1 (1.3)

Stevenson 93 (73.2) 3 (2.4) 25 (19.7) 5 (3.9) 1 (0.8)

Washington 41 (50.6) 4 (4.9) 28 (34.6) 7 (8.6) 1 (1.2)

District 89

Totals

538 (60) 22 (2.5) 258 (28.8) 78 (8.7)

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment practices in core academic areas/Student Achievement

The expectations from special education teachers are often low for students with

disabilities; a belief exists and continues to manifest itself that “these students can’t do that work”.


11/20

11

Yet, many students observed in self contained or more restrictive placements (including the PAEC

program) could be successful in the general education classroom if 1) special education resources

moved to the general education classroom to support students and if 2) general education teachers

had more adequate skills in the areas of differentiation and making accommodations/adaptations.

Schools are engaged in antiquated attempts (at the special education as well as remediation levels)

to work with students in a pull out model. Special education teachers expressed frustration with

not having Teacher Editions or other important materials related to the general education

curriculum.

The use of data to make decisions (instructional decisions, curricular decisions, placement

decisions, decisions regarding student behavior) is problematic in the district. While the data may

exist, the educators in the district do not always have access to the data, may not know how to use

or analyze the data, and have few structures in place to review the data.

It was clear to this evaluator that a clear message had been sent to principals and teachers

that students with disabilities should have access to the general education curriculum and state

standards. Teachers stated that they use grade level curriculum and that it is tied to state standards.

Yet, while the intent was always to provide grade level curriculum and standards, the practice did

not always follow. Teachers often struggled with providing direct instruction and special education

interventions (that may or may not have been tied to the general education curriculum) and with

providing students access to grade level general education curriculum. This is one of the major

dilemmas of having self-contained or pull out classrooms that are separate from the general

education programs. And it ties to the basic philosophy a district has as to the purpose of special

education: is it a supplement to the general education program or a replacement to the general

education program? While there were examples of good instruction that was individualized, there

were also examples of students across grade levels all engaged in the same activity with no

differentiation. It was clear in these situations that assessment was not guiding instruction. There

were also far too many examples of students doing worksheets that seemed to not be tied to the

general education curriculum or to a specific intervention. In some classrooms, it was unclear how

much pre-assessment was taking place prior to planning a lesson or unit for a group of students.

There is no consistency or clear standards for the curriculum across special education

classrooms; it seems to be left up to each individual teacher. There are also varied “programs” being

implemented across special education classrooms (Wilson, Read 180, PALS, Read About, DiBELS,

WCMI Math etc). It is unclear as to whether or not these programs are being implemented with

fidelity.


12/20


13/20

13

Parent Relationships:

The parent focus group represented a small number of parents; however, though small in

numbers, the parents were open and willing to share their thoughts. The parents were grateful for

the hard work of the special educators; they believed that these individuals helped their child gain

self-confidence. The parents indicated that they would like to see a parent support group organized

by the district, with regular meetings and agenda items that would provide them with additional

resources. They also felt this group could provide support to one another.

The utilization and adequacy of staff/ The roles and relationships of special education teachers

As noted in the commendation section, District 89 has adequate staff across special

education programs. However, this evaluator believes that the staff may not be utilized in the most

efficient and effective manner; the roles and relationships of special educators must begin to look

different in the district. Currently, there are as many labels on special educators as there are on the

students in the special education program. And the special educators are often working in isolation

of their colleagues in general education. For example, teachers referenced themselves by category:

LD self-contained teacher, LD resource teacher, etc. By using these categorical labels on staff, it

diminishes the flexibility within a school building to use staff as needed to serve the students in the

building. Likewise, it makes building co-teaching schedules difficult.

While the district is well staffed with special education personnel, there were some other

issues that were raised through this evaluation. First, there seems to be a practice in the district to

move personnel from building to building, sometimes each school year. Teachers, administrators,

social workers and related service personnel all expressed frustration with this practice and they

were unclear as to how those decisions are made. One outcome of this practice is that the special

education teachers who need to build strong collaborative relationships with their colleagues in

general education are being moved, resulting in more fragmentation and greater isolation for

teachers. In addition, and more importantly, the students who may be the most vulnerable and who

may need sustained relationships with adults in school are denied this opportunity for mentoring

and support. Additionally, while caseloads are good for special education teachers, there is a

concern that some schools have a single teacher spread across six grade levels. And, there was some

concern expressed regarding the need for more bi-lingual teachers and school psychologists.

A second concern has to do with technology. Technology resources do not appear to be

equitably distributed across buildings. Additionally, related service staff and psychologists who

share buildings and move between buildings do not have quality computers or access to the


14/20

14

programs needed. For example, the psychologists have to come to the central office to score their

protocols. And some of these personnel do not have access to printers.

A third concern of the staff related to networking and sharing across the district. Many

shared that changes in leadership over time has brought a variety of different messages to the

special education personnel concerning roles and responsibilities. They noted that when regular

meetings of “like” personnel (Social Workers, School Psychologists, teachers etc) were scheduled

they found the time to be of great value.

Finally, many individuals spoke of their concern with accessing Power School and the need

for special education and general education to be using a single database.

The effect of service delivery on the total school population

It is important to remember that the service delivery system for children with disabilities

cannot be changed in isolation from the service delivery system for children without disabilities.

Most methods, strategies, and interventions that are effective for students with disabilities are

effective for all students in the school. Thus, it is impossible to consider how special education can

be changed without also changing general education. The district’s efforts and progress in Response

to Intervention is important, as it will hopefully bring greater integrity and fidelity to instruction at

the Tier 1 level and thus, meet the needs of a larger number of students.

There also appears to be a financial impact to being a part of PAEC. While I did not request

the financials for PAEC and the district, nor did I have the time in this evaluation to thoroughly

assess the information, I did gather some data from administrators in District 89 and PAEC

administrators. PAEC provides a number of services to the district. They are to be commended for

this. However, in many instances they have administrative layers that seem unnecessary for District

89, and as in any organizational system, those layers come with a cost. As I reviewed the services

provided by PAEC, I did not find any program or service that District 89 could not take sole

responsibility for. This financial impact could have a significant impact on the District’s overall

budget.

A concern that was often raised regarding the impact that more inclusive practices might

have on the general education system was related to the large general education class sizes. While

there is no magic number for appropriate class sizes, it is evident that the class sizes in the district

are quite high and may impact the successful integration of students with disabilities.


15/20

15

Recommendations

1. District 89 should immediately review their continued membership within PAEC, the

financial impact of pulling out of the Coop, and the programs and services currently

provided by PAEC that should return to District 89. It is strongly recommended that

planning begin to bring back most, if not all of the students currently being served in a PAEC

program to District 89 over the course of the next two years (the one exception may be the

program for alternative education). This will require the creation of a clear plan that

includes the necessary professional development needed to successfully include this group

of students in district buildings.

2.

It is recommended that District 89 engage in a comprehensive long range planning process

for special education services; one that moves the district from separate, autonomous

buildings and programs to a unified system of education. A focus of this planning process

should be to develop a vision and mission of special education in District 89 with a specific

focus on the analysis of the special education service delivery models currently in existence

in the district. Goals for this planning process should be to 1) develop a mutual

understanding of the beliefs and practices relative to the delivery of services in District 89,

and 2) the development of a series of goal statements to be used in designing an action plan

for a five year special education service delivery model that is effective and efficient. The

district strategic plan should be a guiding document for this process.

3.

It is recommended that the district continue to build and sustain the positive relationships

it currently has with families. The district leadership might explore options for parent

education around specific disabilities, the IEP process, etc. The district might also want to

consider the formation of a parent advisory or support group that would serve as a conduit

for communication between and among parents and between parents and the district

leadership.

4.

As budgets become tighter in public schools, flexibility and adaptability in how human

resources are used to meet the needs of students will become even more important. It is

recommended that the re-deployment of resources be a consideration if the district chooses

to enter into a long range planning process. Using special education personnel in different

ways, with more co-teaching and support in the general education system may diminish the

impact of the large class sizes.

5. A clear and consistent RtI structure and process will be important in moving the district

forward with quality instruction. The purpose of Tier 1 is to “monitor the integrity of


16/20

16

instructional delivery and review student performance to determine the instructional

adjustments needed to the core program”. The intent is to deliver core academic

curriculum with integrity and adjust instruction to meet individual learning needs. As stated

in this report, it is impossible to change the special education system without also changing

the general education system. The district must revisit the RtI planning process and ensure

that a plan is implemented across the district with consistency and fidelity.

6.

Within the past 10 years, the conversation in IEP conferences has shifted from should we

include this student to how (what supports are necessary) do we include this student. This

shift must be made in D89. As mentioned in this report, there are too many students

spending all or most of their day in separate special education classrooms. The district must

begin to move special education resources into the general education classrooms to support

students with disabilities in that environment rather than a separate environment. Illinois

Project Choices is a great resource for the district.

7.

Co-teaching is one model to support this. However, the current approach to co-teaching

would need to be reviewed and revised (which could happen in the comprehensive

planning process), as it is not well defined in the district. Currently, co-teaching seems to be

reserved primarily for students who are not in the self-contained program. Yet, students

from self-contained programs are exactly the students for whom co-teaching was designed.

Co-teaching means that a special educator is providing direct service, usually in reading and

math, to students with disabilities in a general education classroom. Therefore, it should be

designed for students who need intensive service from a special educators and whose IEP

calls for direct service. A co-teaching model was not intended for students who are

receiving minimal special education support (resource, consult etc). It is further

recommended that teachers be provided professional development in co-teaching to help

ensure that the model is used in an effective and efficient manner.

8.

The district should consider staffing buildings so that no teacher is covering six grade levels.

9. A large part of the responsibility for creating the collaborative school cultures to facilitate a

more unified approach to teaching all students rests with the building principal. If the

building leadership views special education as someone else’s responsibility, then this

attitude will filter down to students, staff and parents. Principals must be held accountable

for creating within their schools structures and supports to ensure that all building

personnel share the responsibility to educate all students.


17/20

17

10.

It is recommended that all individuals with key responsibilities for remedial and/or

intervention programs invest the necessary time to develop a common instructional

framework that would bring greater program coherence to the various programs and thus

would guide and coordinate supports for teaching and learning in the district. This may

require a 1-2 day retreat structure with a facilitator who can bring consensus on the

common direction in which these programs are going. Once this framework is developed,

school principals could focus their school improvement plans, professional development,

and resources on a few goals coordinated through a common framework.

11.

Professional development cannot be simply learning new content; it must be embedded in

the daily lives of teachers, with a focus on improved student outcomes and the development

of professional learning communities at the school level. Extensive professional

development should be offered district wide in the following areas: 1) Co-teaching and

collaboration; 2) Differentiated Instruction; 3) Brain Compatible Classrooms and 4) the

effects of poverty, race and culture on learning. In addition, teams of teachers should be

provided opportunities to visit inclusionary programs in other parts of the region, including

programs that integrate students with significant disabilities. Continued emphasis should

be placed on ensuring that all teachers have the tools and understanding with which to

differentiate instruction and how to appropriately provide accommodations and

modifications for students with disabilities and students at-risk for failure. Teachers should

share a common definition of differentiated instruction. Differentiation is not a classroom

that groups by ability, but one that engages students in instruction through different

modalities, by appealing to different interests, and by using varied rates of instruction along

with varied degrees of complexity (Tomlinson, 1999).

12. All Special Education staff who move across buildings should be provided laptops and have

access to printers.

13.

All Special Education teachers should have copies of all general education materials relative

to the students on their caseload.

14.

District 89 must go beyond simply recognizing the challenge that diversity brings to the

classroom. In the quest to meet this challenge, the district should find means to not simply

tolerate diversity, but celebrate it. This will require intensive diversity training that affords

educators in the district an opportunity to better understand 1) the role that language

diversity (including ethnic dialects) plays in learning; 2) the cultural clashes between

student’s home cultures and the school culture (including the culture of poverty); 3) the


18/20

18

impact of stereotyping certain groups of students resulting in lowered expectations and 4)

community and cultural norms. At issue is not how to create the perfect “culturally

matched” learning environment for each ethnic group, but rather how to recognize when

there is a problem for an individual child and how to seek its cause in “the most broadly

conceived fashion” (Delpit, 1995, p.167)

15.

The Special Education Department might consider offering quarterly meetings of special

education personnel. A caution, however, is to ensure that these meetings do not become

categorical in nature (i.e. self contained, resource etc) as this will only continue the

fragmentation and disconnect mentioned in this report when there are labels on teachers.

16.

It appears that the district is engaged in a collaborative effort to gain fluency across

buildings for Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS). This effort should be

continued, and full implementation across buildings should be a goal within the next two

years. Illinois has one of the most exemplary support systems for this program and the

district should seek support to re-train and implement PBIS across the district.

17.

The Superintendent and Director of Special Education acknowledge the need for the district

to become more data driven. It is recommended that structures and policies be considered

to encourage the use of data, including ensuring that a single database is used for both

general and special education.

18. As the district continues to hire new staff in special education, great effort should be made

to recruit and hire individuals who are bi-lingual. This is especially true for School

Psychologists.

19.

It is recommended that the Special Education department conduct a survey of teacher’s

beliefs and attitudes regarding inclusive practices in order to gather baseline data for future

evaluation of inclusive programs.

Summary

This program review has hopefully provided an impartial and valid picture of the special

education program in District 89. An enormous amount of data was collected; yet it is recognizedthat in the short time spent in the district, there are strengths, concerns and issues that may have

been missed. However, I believe that the recommendations will result in improved quality and

effectiveness of instruction, an improved organizational structure, and will bring special education

in closer alignment with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.


19/20

19

Several of the recommendations have a high priority, and should be acted upon in a timely

manner:

1. This report should be shared and discussed with the district leadership.

2. This report should be made available to other stakeholders for their review and discussion.

3. The district should immediately begin discussions regarding the recommendations about

PAEC programs and membership made in this report.

4. This report should be a framework to guide the recommended planning process for a

direction and vision for special education in District 89.

In conclusion, District 89 should merge the special and general education systems into a single,

unified system of education for all students. This will take some time, and will require leadership

and clear direction at both the district and building levels. However, as student diversity increases,

the system cannot support divisions in roles and relationships. The District has a very committed

group of educators, involved parents and good leadership. These are essential components for the

development of a system of education that shares the responsibility and ownership for all of its

students.


20/20

20

References

Borg, W. & Gall, M. (1989). Educational Research. White Plains: Longman, Inc.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. The New Press: New

York.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. London:Sage Publications

Tomlinson, C. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom. ASCD: Alexandria, Va.

Waldron, N. & Cole, C. (2000). The academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional

settings. Report to Indiana Department of Education: Indiana University.

District 89 Final Report Sandi Cole

Documents

Transcript of District 89 Final Report Sandi Cole