Special Education Services Analysis (2015)

BINGHAMTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AN EDUCATION SERVICES ANALYSIS CONDUCTED BY: JOHN MCGUIRE, M.ED. MICHAEL NEIMAN, PH.D. CCC/S-LP SHANNA DELPRETE, M.A. CCC/S-LP RICHARD LABRIE, M.A. Respectfully Submitted: June 2015 Binghamton City Schools Educational Services Analysis 2015 Futures Education of New York 1 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Executive Process Summary ......................................................................................... 3 Glossary of Abbreviations ................................................................................................ 3 Glossary of Terms........................................................................................................ 4 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 4 Document Organization .................................................................................................. 4 ORGANIZATION CONSIDERATIONS Overview ......................................................................................................................... 5 Findings ...................................................................................................................... 5 Recommendations........................................................................................................... 8 CONTINUUM OF SUPPORTS Overview ....................................................................................................................... 10 Findings .................................................................................................................... 11 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 15 FINANCIAL REVIEW MEDICAID Overview ....................................................................................................................... 18 Findings .................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 25 TRANSPORTATION Overview ....................................................................................................................... 27 Findings .................................................................................................................... 28 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 30 SUMMARY AND FINAL COMMENTARY………………………………….…………………………………….31 SOURCES AND RESOURCES……………….………………………………….…………………………………….32 APPENDICES…………………………………….………………………………….……………………….……….…….35 Binghamton City Schools Educational Services Analysis 2015 Futures Education of New York 2 | P a g e INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE PROCESS SUMMARY The leadership of the Binghamton City School District (hereafter, referred to as the District) commissioned this review of specific areas that support struggling learners. In conducting this analysis, the review team employed proprietary methodology from a pre-established paradigm (i.e., an Educational Services Analysis), which triangulates information gleaned from qualitative and quantitative information. More specifically, the qualitative analyses comprised: (1) a series of interviews with special and general education teachers, related service providers, paraprofessionals, central office administrators, and school-based administrators; (2) a review of documents (i.e., IEPs) to ascertain the degree and appropriateness of educational programming and services; and (3) site visits to District programs to ascertain the continuum of services and programs. Quantitative analyses included: (1) multidimensional analyses of information contained within the IEPs; (2) comparative analyses of staffing and corresponding workloads; and (3) financial data pertaining to programmatic expenditures (e.g., personnel and transportation) and revenues (i.e., the Medicaid program). Given the number of data points, the results that are reported within this document represent recurring themes from the interviews (outlying comments were not included as part of the primary findings) coupled with quantitative data. GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AIS: Academic Instructional Supports ARI: Availability Ratio Index ASY: Academic School Year BOCES: Boards of Cooperative Educational Services CSE: Committee on Special Education CPSE: Committee on Preschool Special Education FAPE: Free and Appropriate Public Education FTE: Full-time equivalent IEP: Individualized Education Program LRE: Least Restrictive Environment OT: Occupational Therapist or occupational therapy services PD: Professional development PT: Physical Therapist or physical therapy services RSP: Related Service Provider RtI: Response to Intervention S-LP: Speech-Language Pathologist or speech-language pathology services SDG: Similar District Group SWDs: Students with Disabilities Binghamton City Schools Educational Services Analysis 2015 Futures Education of New York 3 | P a g e GLOSSARY OF TERMS Continuum Of Supports: The range of programs, personnel, and resources to support all students. Effectiveness: The degree to which the services under review promote optimal educational outcomes and student access to the curriculum. Efficiency: The degree to which the special education services and personnel under review are responsibly, uniformly, and optimally utilized to ensure District resources are being expended in a fiscally sound manner. Horizontal Alignment: Practices that correlate special education instruction to grade-level expectations. Vertical Alignment: The degree to which the transition of SWDs as they progress from one grade, school, or program to another, is seamless. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge District staff and school personnel. This project necessitated a great amount of effort in facilitating logistics and in securing documents; the team is grateful for the efforts of all central office and school-based staff. Throughout the entire process, the cooperative relationship between Futures and the District has enabled the team to work with District leadership in a collegial and transparent manner in order to maximize the benefits of this analysis for the District. Futures team members are sensitive to, and focused upon, the ultimate objective of the project: To support the District leadership and stakeholders in attaining their goals and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of educational services. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The staff of Futures is pleased to provide this report of the comprehensive analysis of the programs and services conducted in November of 2014. The primary purpose of this analysis is to describe, and to provide suggestions to improve, specific areas within its education delivery system that include: (1) In-District Continuum of Services (2) Out of District Placements (3) Response to Intervention Binghamton City Schools Educational Services Analysis 2015 Futures Education of New York 4 | P a g e (4) Organization and Structure of Special Education Services (5) Related Services (6) District Finances Related to Recoupment of Medicaid and Special Education Transportation These six components are considered with respect to: Organizational Considerations, Continuum of Supports, and Financial Review. In turn, each component is considered with respect an Overview, Findings, and Recommendations. The report concludes with a global consideration of the delivery system and those key recommendations District leadership may consider as part of its short- and long-term strategic planning. ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERVIEW The authors intentionally begin this document with a consideration of the organizational and cultural capacities of, and within, the special education delivery system. The reason for this is that without the requisite positive leadership and mindsets, all of the forthcoming recommendations concerning the programmatic and fiscal enhancements will have less potential for successful implementation. FINDINGS CLIMATE AND CULTURE . At the school buildings, the relationship between special and general education staff was perceived as variable, but, improved and improving over recent years, with good relationships among teachers who collaborated in inclusive situations and at the director level across disciplines, and positive relationships with building principals, despite the potentially overwhelming nature and multiple conflicting demands of the building administrators’ roles. The ownership of SWDs on the part of adults was also described as variable and both individual and school building-dependent. In general, ownership was reported to be higher at the elementary schools than at the middle schools or high school, and it was also seen as better among those general education teachers who had been in collaborative relationships with their special education teacher colleagues. There were concerns among respondents regarding what were perceived to be significant vestiges of “Your Student- My Student” thinking among staff, especially at the secondary schools. The introduction of the APPR has staff quite anxious and, and as with other districts the authors have analyzed, has the potential to undo the culture of “our student.” . As per the educational environments presented in Figure 1 below, the data of the District as it relates to keepings SWDs in the LRE is mixed. There

Load more