Bellingham Public Schools

Special Education

Focus Group Meeting 1/23/04

Representatives in attendance :
Sue Alfawicki, Elementary Resource
Donna Davis, MS Resource
Stew Egbert, HS Resource
Yvette Casto, ESSSs/Psychologists
Diane Delahunty, OT/PT & Blind/Vision Impaired
Kathy Gann, Speech Language Pathologists & Deaf/HHearing
Debora Haney, Early Childhood/Preschool
Leslie Knudsen, EBD & Behavior Specialist
Mary Lindsey, Lifeskills
Lucille Nollette, Compliance
Jean Prochaska, Principals|
Sue Thomas, Facilitator
Guests: Wilma Charleston, Accounting Manager
Stewart Mhyre, Business/Operations Manager

Topic: Budget Projections

Summary: Presentation and question/answer session with Wilma Charleston and Stewart Mhyre

Effect of 2003-2004 contract

1. Contract provisions were not in original budget. $48,000 – 2 additional days
2. Expecting additional money
   1. $54,000 federal dollars
   2. classified medical insurance encumbered
3. District has not yet identified the amount Special Ed needs to cut from 03-04 budget
4. Safety Net
   1. Special Ed will not qualify for funding, or it will be minimal
   2. Safety Net funding for 02-03 was $78,000
   3. Safety Net funds are not stable, may end at any time.
   4. Special Ed must bill for Medicaid services in order to qualify for other funds

Special Ed 04-05 budget:

1. Highly doubtful above baseline positions will be approved
2. If the levy fails there will be more cuts
3. If the levy passes there will not be any changes because the budget “assumes” it will pass
4. The State does not provide money necessary to fully support general ed, transportation, or special ed
5. “Maintenance of Effort” is confusing and complicated. The local district should not decrease money when state or federal money is increased.
6. The impact of the District's lawsuit against the State to fully fund education is not known

Next step:

Vote! Email your legislators from home!

Topic: “What is working?”

•  Reduced class sizes in Lifeskills program

•  Increased program IA hours (comparable reduction of student-specific IA hours)

•  Shared student-specific IA hours between/among two or more students (reduce expectation for 1:1)

•  Increased allotment of program IA to a total of 4.0 hours per 1.0 FTE Resource teacher

•  Continued IEP-related time for Resource program (the equivalent of ½ day/week)

•  Conversion of Integ-K program IA to Resource program IA for more flexibility in supporting students

•  Provision of extended-day (“intercession”) preschool program for applicable students with Autism

•  Provided 4 days (contract) to address IEP activities

•  Assignment of SLPs to two schools (2 is doable, 3 is not)

•  Ongoing professional development opportunities (occur during the workday, available to a variety of staff, clock hours available)

•  Appropriate work spaces & computer/printer access for itinerant staff

•  Improved IEP development (direct connection between the Evaluation and the IEP)

•  Clarification of eligibility for Extended School Year (ESY)

•  Understanding of WAAS/WASL

•  Efficient, safe, confidential transport of special ed student files from building to building (blue pouches)

•  IEP behavior plans that include a “learning component”

•  Flowchart for placement in district programs

•  Reduction/elimination of formal complaints (including citizen complaints, mediation, due process, OCR)

•  Communication & organization on the Focus Group

•  Reduction of outside consultant contracts (we're building capacity from within)

•  Special ed administrator support to all schools (split between Lucille & Sue)

•  Improved access to special ed administrators

•  Retention of well-trained, experienced program IAs (6.5 hours/permanent)

•  Teaming between support staff (itinerant) and teachers

•  Professional development to principals (reg special ed)

•  Improved contacts/connections with early intervention providers & elimination of unrealistic expectations of “public school”

•  Transition process of elementary students to middle school, middle school students to high school (“file transfer day”)

•  Adaptive PE for students in Lifeskills (where applicable, using the PE teacher assigned in the building)

•  Purchase of equipment/materials for adaptive PE teachers

•  Improved communication between Special Ed & Transportation Depts.

•  Revision of preschool screening process to improve efficiency

•  Availability & response time of Behavior Team

•  Expertise of Behavior Team to assist school teams

•  Variety of computer classes (professional development)

•  Training in assistive technology (Carol R)

•  Cooperation between Special Ed & Network Services Depts

•  Well-trained, knowledgeable OT-PT instructional assistants

•  Knowledgeable members & clear process of the Assistive Technology Committee

•  Team teaching at the MS & HS levels

•  Support staff providing integrated service delivery (especially reg literacy)

•  IEP peer review process

•  District ownership of students with special needs (“these are OUR kids”)

•  Collaboration among departments at HS level (special ed/counseling/registrar)

•  Shared language (instructional strategies, supporting all students) & empathetic language (“students with disabilities”)

•  Professional development in “Differentiated Instruction”

•  Level meetings included special ed staff

•  Consistent support staff assignments

•  Change in Deaf/Hard of Hearing service delivery model

•  Increased number of upgraded or new computers for special ed classrooms

•  Increased length of day & reduction of cost to provide IAES to students who have been removed for discipline

 Topic: “What is not working?

•  Need to shift IAs if student numbers drop in district programs (such as Lifeskills)

•  Dedicated time for staff collaboration (this is an overall district issue)

•  Need for flexibility in IA job description/responsibilities to support students/programs (“inclusion” requires flexibility/fluidity across programs)

•  Complex students are straining the system

•  Student needs can be overwhelming to staff (“how can we help this unique student?”)

•  Difficult for Resource teachers to schedule services to MS students in the block schedule format

•  Part-time Resource teachers are unable to see students in several subject areas

•  Class size/work load is high (at the elementary level, Resource numbers may be as high as 30-39)

•  Need for comparable class size/caseload between special ed & general ed

•  IEP minutes may not represent student needs, not data-driven, not consistent across the system (need decision rubric)

•  Trigger / trigger formula

•  Unable to provide instruction in functional & applied skills within current Resource program model

•  Need vocational options (increased academic rigor a concern)

•  Need to research other districts about service delivery models (what is accepted practice?)

•  How to provide both intensive 1:1 instruction & still provide an integrated academic program for students with Autism (we have “islands” of best practice)

•  Minimal number of IA hours in the reserve pool for emergencies

•  Need individualized plans to gradually reduce student-specific IA time

•  Need quality meeting time between teacher & IA (without students present)

•  Utilizing resources efficiently & most appropriately

•  Coordination to place students in IAES & provide materials

•  Professional development for PE teachers who are teaching adaptive PE

•  Preschool assessment model (in a state of flux...will it be centralized or not?)

•  Professional development to provide a range of services (such as music therapy)

•  Clarification of “supplementary aids & services” on the IEP

•  Increased number of recommendations for FM systems by outside audiologists (expensive!)

•  Upgraded computers for students

•  Meeting Evaluation & IEP compliance timelines/deadlines (monthly count)

Topic: Data Collection

Summary: We would like input from cert staff about distributing Resource teachers as per student numbers not more than 10% of building enrollment, and with a proposed caseload of 20-25 students per teacher. (Current numbers we use for distribution of staffing is 28 students/1.0 FTE @ HS, and 27 students/1.0 FTE @ MS & Elem)

Next steps:

Sue will collect 1 st semester numbers & 2 nd semester numbers, and present on a grid for review by the group If conversion of IA time to FTE appears feasible, representatives will seek input from their like-groups Sue will develop suggested wording for questions seeking input We will meet again on February 9 th to review information & determine if we are moving forward with a recommendation