Special Education Audit Report
This article on Special Education in SPS appeared in today's Times.
Tuesday Open Thread
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Comments
As a long-time special education teacher in Seattle, I can only say that unless the district is willing to provide far more support than they currently do to general education teachers in whose classrooms special ed kids are mainstreamed, this will not work. Our regular education teachers are already dealing with enough issues.
Building a new structure should start with asking teachers exactly why it is difficult to serve some special education students well in the regular classroom. Listen to teachers, students and parents. Just like everyone else, they want to have options to choose from. Better yet, go sit in a high school language arts class with 32 students, 5 of whom have IEP's and read well below grade level, 4 of whom have 504's that give them "extra time" on assignments, 6 of whom are second language learners, 6 of whom have not passed the previous year's LA course and then tell that teacher he or she is not doing quite enough for the special ed kids.
...Chief Academic Officer Carla Santorno said reviewing special ed was one of her top priorities when she arrived in 2006. She immediately noticed the same structural problems the audit noted.
Anon said...So we were willing to spend $116,000 to find out what we have known all along about our special education programs? You cannot convince me that these "audits" are going to do anything more than allow the new administration to "restructure" again.
Isn't it amazing that the auditors so often reach the same conclusion that those who contract them for the work expect.
As a friend of mine said education research usually shows what needs to be shown so the researcher can get the next grant to do research.
Could someone please do an audit on the effect on student learning and teacher satisfaction that results from the SPS failure to follow their own policies D44 & D45 and RCW 28A 600.020
Depending on who was paying, it might show that following your own policies and state laws are a bad idea. Why else would SPS have ignored them for so long?
The never ending circus continues.
Yes it is time to restructure.
Now ladies and gentlemen direct from performances far and wide the SPS bring you Special Education restructuring in the center ring.
Here's the report in full. As a parent who was interviewed, I believe the Urban Collaborative did an excellent job outlining the problems and illegal practices here in Seattle. I can't comment on the cost... but given that SPS spent $250,000 on mediators to hand hold a bunch of parents crying about school closures it doesn't seem that out of line.
I'm very disappointed with Special Ed teacher above. The report noted that many teachers have your outdated notion that general education was of no "value" to students with disabilities. It's obvious that special education self-containment as we have now is plagued by low expectations, no content curriculum, poor performance, and low graduation rates for students. More than 70% of these students have average or better IQ's. Doesn't it seem crazy to spend all that money on kids that actually are capable of learning... and get practically nothing in return?
Yes, students and parents want options. But the review noted that students with disabilites recieve the fewest choices and options. And yes, general educators need support. But currently, they're allowed to completely punt.
You might feel sorry for the general education teacher.... but you should feel a lot worse for the special education student who receives perpetual preschool for 20 years and then becomes a burden for life. Ever visit a self-contained classroom?
But, I too fear that the district will not adequately support the initiative.
sorry, the last part of the link is above.
In 2001-02 Seattle School had 43,328 kids and 2,241 "Basic Education Funded Certificated Instructional Staff". Last year they had 43,310 kids and 1,995 staff (see OSPI Report 1159).
Perhaps special education students are better served in classes with regular education students. But placing these kids in an already over-stressed and overcrowded classroom will create more problems than it solves. You cannot successfully address the issue of special education without addressing the issue of regular education.
Our elementary has autism inclusion, and I could not agree more with the quote above. Everyone at the school level is dedicated and working hard for the success of the kids with autism and their general ed classmates. The parent community seems supportive of the inclusion program. But at the same time class sizes have grown -- the whole school population has grown -- with no extra staff except the special ed teachers/aides. There are over 100 more children in the building than 6 years ago, with the same number of teachers, including gym, art, etc. How is this supposed to serve the population of students? --Lisa
"add" more students to a classroom. If the program wasn't in that building, the district would assign other students to those same seats. Some of these students would have disabilities too... but the school would get absolutely NO support for these other kids. Arguably, the current autism programs are well supported and add staff that everyone can use. (Typically, the aids help everyone.) The problem will happen if the district opens the floodgates, and then doesn't provide resource. And that is the key.
Still, I'm bothered by the simultaneous opening of classroom seats to more kids with special needs and increasing class size. Due to both the philosophy of inclusion and funding issues, there is not always an aide available to every general ed teacher. So while the aides are a great help, they do not effectively reduce class size. --Lisa
One thing that was not covered in the report was hiring/retention practices for special ed. teachers. I wonder if they looked at that. More positions seem to be filled at this point in the year this year, but there have been 14+ open special ed teacher positions throughout the year each year over the last few years, maybe more. I have a master's degree in special ed., 6 successful years of experience, and I am in a decent position now, but I had one terrible position at SPS that I left for another job in private practice, and another job at an SPS school that I had to leave because I was being told to break the law by my principal. I was not supported by the special ed dept. except to be told that I was right, and would be welcome to apply for any other open positions in the district.
And for the past few months, the only professional development classes offered by SPS special ed are SECURE classes (behavior de-escalation).
There is a lot more going on than what was covered by the report. I hope there is a huge overhaul. I am also an SPS parent with a preschooler with likely special needs, and I am poised to homeschool if need be.
So I agree with the first anonymous poster (and unfortunately, I too feel the need to post anonymously - sorry!). There are many dedicated and talented special ed teachers in the district who have been burning the candle at multiple ends, or just throwing their hands up in despair, and my hat's off to those who have been here for a long time. I am operating on a year-to-year basis.......
-Special ed teacher
I was involved with the development of a 7th & 8th grade school (not in the SPS) that had a very effective inclusion model. This was a brand new middle school and the inclusion model planning was a part of the original design. There are few if any existing schools that will have the time and resources to plan this properly.
The SPS is renown for poor planning and hasty implementations.
Hopefully Dr. G-J can do better.
There should be great concern about class size and quality of educational outcomes for all. The district spends in excess of $7.2 million annually on academic coaches for teachers and the Pathways High School program. That is approximately 100 teachers worth of funding, as $7.2 million = about 100+ teachers.
The high school pathways program now in its second year appears to be the opposite of how the district now wishes to move. Seems about average in the SPS - design a program and then give up after a relatively short time.
Currently there is concern in Mathematics and other subjects about the difficulty in determining which students are instructionally impaired (from inadequate materials and instruction) and which students have learning disabilities (qualify for special services).
Hopefully Dr. G-J can implement some mainstreaming properly. Given this districts on going failure to even implement their own promotion policies k-8 (D44.00 & D45.00) or select an appropriate math curriculum (one that will not produce even more instructionally disabled learners) I have my doubts about special ed improvement.
Look for development time and when this program will be actually beginning. Perhaps that will be a key to whether this is about creating lasting change that can sustain improvement or another poorly planned change that will need to be abandoned.