A Review of Special Education Programs
Dallas Independent School District
February 2017
Improving Student Achievement in Dallas Independent School District
A Review of Special Education Programs
State of special education programming Perceptions of the efficacy of special education Improving guidance and support for special education students
Report of Findings and Recommendations
Submitted to Dr. Ivan Duran, Deputy Superintendent
February 28, 2017
Prepared and Submitted by
Denise Collier, Ed.D. Collier Educational Consulting
CEC
Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Dallas Independent School District Special Education Program Review
Table of Contents
I. Overview of the Special Education Program Review 1
II. Review Process Methodology and Related Research 4
III. Special Education Program Overview and 9 Document Review
IV. Special Education Data and Information Analysis A. Enrollment and Participation 12 B. Access and Equity 15 C. Analysis of Enrollment, Access, and Equity Data 21 D. Student Performance 22 E. Staffing and Budget 24
V. Promising Practices in Dallas ISD 28
VI. Special Education Program Feedback for 32 Improvement
VII. Special Education Program Review Findings 38
VIII. Special Education Program Review Recommendations 39
IX. Report Summary 40
X. Appendices 43 A. Data and Documents List 44 B. Interviews and Focus Groups 45 C. Schedule and List of School Site Visits 46 D. Research References 47
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC ii 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Dallas Independent School District Special Education Program Review
List of Tables and Figures
Tables Page 1. Special Education Review Process 5 2. Special Education Participation by Disability Category 11 3. Urban District Special Education Enrollment Comparisons (2013-14) 14 4. African American Student Representation in Special Education: 2009-10 to 2016-17 15 5. Hispanic Student Representation in Special Education: 2009-10 to 2016-17 16 6. English Language Learner Representation in Special Education: 2009-10 to 2016-17 17 7. Special Education Representation by Ethnic Group 18 8. LEP Programs Participation for English Language Learners 18 9. DISD Rates of “Does Not Qualify” – Special Ed. Individual Assessment Determination 19 10. Percentage of Special Education Students at the Satisfactory STAAR Standard 23 11. Graduation Rate Comparisons for Special Education Students-Class of 2015 24 12. Graduation Rate Longitudinal for Special Education Students 24 13. Special Education Teacher Staffing (2014-2016) 25 14. Special Education Staffing – Urban District Comparison 2016 25 15. Special Education Individual Evaluation Department Staffing Comparisons 26 16. IE Department Staff Count by Ethnicity-2014 (Diagnosticians and School Psychologists) 27 17. Special Education Budget – State and District Comparison 2016 27 18. Special Education Review Findings and Indicators 38 19. Special Education Review Recommendations 40
Figures Page 1. Special Education Participation by Disability Category 11 2. State Special Education Enrollment Comparisons (2013-14) 13 3. State Special Education Enrollment Trends (2009-10 to 2016-17) 15 4. Percent of Special Education Students at STAAR Satisfactory Level on 3-8 Tests 23 5. Percent of Special Education Students Meeting Standard on EOC Assessments 23 6. Promising Practices in DISD Special Education Classrooms 29 7. Interview Questions 32 8. Parent Center Feedback Summary 33 9. Bilingual Parent Feedback Summary 33 10. Network Parents Feedback Summary 34 11. Teacher Feedback Summary 34 12. Principal Feedback Summary 34 13. Central Administration Feedback Summary 35
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC iii 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Dallas Independent School District Special Education Program Review Report of Findings and Recommendations
I. Overview of the Special Education Review
Vision, Mission, and Goals: Dallas ISD, one of the largest urban districts in Texas, serves a diverse, population of approximately 160,000 students. DISD seeks to be a premier urban school district, educating all students for success.
Dallas ISD has established six goals toward vision and mission attainment: 1. All students will exhibit satisfactory or above performance on state assessments. Students below satisfactory performance will demonstrate more than one year of academic growth. 2. Dallas ISD schools will be the primary choice for families in the district. 3. The achievement gap by race, ethnicity and socio-economic status will be no greater than 10 percentage points on all academic measures. 4. Ninety-five percent of students will graduate. Ninety percent of the graduates will qualify for community college, college, military, or industry certification. 5. Ninety-five percent of students entering kindergarten will be school-ready based on a multidimensional assessment. 6. All students will participate in at least one extracurricular or co-curricular activity each year.
To achieve these goals, the district’s core instructional program—including effective supports and scaffolds for students with unique learning needs and disabilities—must be designed, implemented, and supported effectively and in alignment with college readiness and future-ready learning expectations.
Context for the Special Education Program Review Dallas ISD (DISD) serves over 11,000 students in various support programs under the umbrella of Special Education services. This represents 7.2% of the overall student enrollment (as of 10/10/2016). In 2015 the district received a state accountability rating of “Met Standard” district-wide, but a rating of “Needs Special education” in the area of Special Education. The district is seeking support in analysis of special education programs and services to provide information and guidance for program improvement.
Information from the district’s website provides a snapshot of the district. The Dallas Independent School District sits in the heart of a large, diverse and dynamic region with a metropolitan population of 6.5 million people in the 12 counties in North Central
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 1 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Texas. Dallas ISD comprises 384 square miles and encompasses several municipalities. The district is the second-largest public school district in the state, and the 14th-largest district in the nation. The school district serves approximately 160,000 students in pre-kindergarten through the 12th grade, in 227 schools, employing nearly 20,000 professionals.
Student enrollment in Dallas ISD is comprised of: 70.2% Hispanic 22.6% African American 4.8% White 1.3% Asian .3% American Indian .1% National Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
Dallas ISD has seen gains in student achievement and graduation rates, and strives to help ensure the success of every student. At the same time, however, with the advent of the STAAR exam and the requirements of House Bill 5 related to community-based accountability, the expectations of test-based accountability and curriculum mastery have increased for special education students in the state of Texas. It is in this context of change that the district has undertaken this program review process. District information retrieved November 14, 2016 from http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/336.
Special Education Program Reviewer To conduct the Special Education program review in reading/language arts and mathematics, Dallas ISD contracted with Dr. Denise Collier of Collier Educational Consulting. Dr. Collier wishes to thank the Dallas ISD personnel who participated in this review. Dr. Ivan Duran, Deputy Superintendent, provided guidance and oversight. Ms. Rosalind Smith effectively facilitated the review process. Many district leaders provided data, information, insights, and clarity related to the district’s special education programs and systems. A list of district leaders interviewed for this report may be found in the appendices section, but the following leaders played a key role in this work and special thanks go out to: Parent Focus Group Participants (Parent Center, Bilingual Parents, Network) Teacher Focus Group Participants Principal Focus Group Participants Dr. Ivan Duran, Deputy Superintendent Ms. Stephanie Elizalde, Chief of School Leadership Mr. Vicente Reyes, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning Dr. Cecilia Oakley, Assistant Superintendent of Evaluation and Assessment Mr. Brian Lusk, Deputy Chief of School Leadership School Leadership Executive Directors
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 2 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Ms. Tanya Browne, Executive Director Special Education Ms. Rosalind Smith, Director Academic Improvement and Accountability Principals and Teacher Focus Groups at 10 Site Visit Schools o Carr Elementary o Dade Middle Schools o Donald Elementary o Garcia Middle Schools o Hotchkiss Elementary o Piedmont Middle School o McNair Elementary o Conrad High School o Titche Elementary o Woodrow Wilson High School
While individuals other than those listed above are not identified by name in the report, the reviewer wishes to thank the parents, principals, teachers, teacher assistants, and central administration leaders who provided information and gave their valuable time to participate in surveys, interviews, site visits and focus groups. Without their contributions, this review would not have been possible.
Special Education Program Review Purpose According to Deputy Superintendent Dr. Ivan Duran, the Special Education program review for the Dallas Independent School District was requested to meet the following purposes: Examine current special education quality and efficacy through the lens of program enactment in a variety of DISD schools, Solicit and analyze special education program improvement feedback from principals, teachers, and district leaders, Provide a summary of Special Education programs status in DISD, including effective implementation of special education programs, and Use data, feedback, and research to recommend areas where the district can focus future training and resources to best support special education students and the schools that serve them.
As the purpose of this Special Education program review was to provide guidance for district-level program planning and improvement (rather than a detailed school-by-school evaluation), individual staff members are not identified by name in the final report or related documents.
In addition, this review was not requested for nor designed to be a special education compliance review. It does not address legal compliance issues with state or federal program guidelines. Dallas ISD has other avenues for addressing such issues. Rather, this review was sought to determine the state of the academic and support programs provided for special education students and to ascertain the perceptions of the quality of special education program toward meeting the district’s mission and goals from the perspectives of parents, teachers, and school leaders.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 3 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
II. Review Process Methodology and Related Research
Review Questions The Special Education program review sought to answer the following questions: 1. What is the current state of special education programming in the district? What conclusions can be drawn from historical, comparison, and benchmark data?
2. What is the perception of the efficacy of the district’s special education program? What is working well? What isn’t working so well in areas such as: a. Identification and placement b. Continuum of services c. Alignment to the core academic program expectations and curriculum d. Access to customized and responsive programming e. Flow of data across regular education and special education f. Professional capacity and teacher development
3. What guidance or supports from central administration would assist principals and teachers in improving special education services, programs, and outcomes for students?
Review Methodology and Process The review content was derived by triangulating data from five sources, resulting in a set of findings and recommended action steps related to special education programs. Data sources included: Interviews and focus group sessions—to generate program efficacy and improvement feedback from staff at selected school sites and central support departments Program document and data review—to build understanding of program expectations, plans, and outcomes Research / quality practices review—to create a “benchmark” of effective practices for examining district programs Campus site visits—to provide a snapshot of special education programs in practice in selected schools and classrooms Principal/leadership team survey—to obtain district-wide feedback regarding program status and improvement
The review process and key district/campus responsibilities are outlined in Table1.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 4 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Table 1. Special Education Review Process
Component Details District/Campus Responsibilities Interviews with central Preview interview questions.
administration and school leaders Interviews Prepare to respond to interview conducted to generate a summary questions. of special education program Participate in the interview. efficacy and to solicit feedback for improvement
Various groups (instructional Allow, encourage, and support Focus groups coaches, parents, teachers, central participation in focus group sessions administration program leaders) participated in focus group sessions Participate in focus groups as providing input regarding special requested education programs School site visits were conducted to Facilitate and participate in site visit. School Site Visits provide a snapshot of the special Principals were asked to: education programs in practice in Communicate site visit process with selected schools. The 2-3 hour staff school visit included: Select general education and special 30-45-minute principal interview education teachers for focus group 30-45 minute group visit with Determine classrooms for school teachers learning walk and develop a 60-90 minute classroom walk with schedule (5-10 minutes per principal or designated school classroom) leader to observe special education services in practice Reserve a room for group discussions Collect and communicate special education program documents and data or feedback Principal A brief survey was developed to Voluntary participation in the special Survey obtain district-wide feedback from education program survey principals at schools not selected for the site visits
Related Research There is ample, strong evidence that the “proven way to raise student achievement is by improving the core learning context in the school.” This refers to the daily teaching activities and curriculum in general education and related programs. Leaders in higher performing districts develop a high quality core learning system and work to increase inclusion in and access to it for all students. (Theoharis, 2009 as cited by Irby and Birkhold, 2013).
The review of the Dallas ISD special education program was grounded in three streams of research related to high-quality special education services, which are: 1) Ensuring a high-quality core academic program, 2) Increasing student access to the core academic program, and 3) Providing a system of supports for student success (Academic and Non-Academic)
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 5 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Research Stream #1: Ensuring a High-Quality Core Academic Program
The National Center for Educational Achievement (NCEA) has identified key, common characteristics of higher performing schools– schools that have greater success at growing students towards college and career readiness than their comparable schools. NCEA’s research is the result of work in 20 states and over 550 school systems. In their 2011 publication, the NCEA summarized the twenty non-negotiable characteristics of higher performing school districts (ACT, 2011), four of which seem particularly relevant to the Dallas ISD special education review:
Characteristic 1: A clear, district curriculum aligned to college and career readiness standards o “Leaders in higher performing school systems establish a written, district- wide curriculum that clearly identifies academic objectives on what students are to know and be able to do by grade and subject. … The district’s curriculum is tightly aligned with the expectations of the state’s criterion- referenced assessment. Alignment with the state test, however, is a minimal expectation and curriculum is geared toward students receiving an education that prepares them to have success in postsecondary learning. … Curriculum documents in districts supporting higher performing schools communicate high expectations for all students—not just a talented, elite sub-population.” (NCEA, 2011, p. 2-3)
Characteristic 4: The district curriculum is non-negotiable o “Leaders in higher performing school systems require that the district's written curriculum is the taught curriculum in every classroom. The carefully aligned, written curriculum defines what teachers will teach and the content and skills that students must master. Principals and teachers understand these learning goals, that they are non-negotiable, and that they apply to all students.” (NCEA, 2011, p. 3)
Characteristic 13: Instructional programs are implemented with fidelity o “Leaders in higher performing school systems provide the necessary support and resources to implement each adopted instructional program. Districts ensure that the selected instructional programs are implemented with fidelity. The appropriate training and support are provided, and implementation is closely monitored.” (NCEA, 2011, p. 7)
Characteristic 19: District interventions supplement school and classroom efforts with students o “District leaders establish well-developed pyramids of proven, practical intervention programs and practices to support school- and classroom-level student interventions. These district-led efforts are strategic and carefully planned to strengthen students' pathways to rigorous coursework.” (NCEA, 2011, p 10)
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 6 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Interviews and focus group feedback from Dallas ISD principals, teachers, and instructional support leaders indicate support for the current efforts underway to ensure a high-quality core academic program is foundational to the success of special education students. As one principal stated, “The core academic programs has to support all the others.” A district level leader concurred with, “We need to get back to the time of a coherent tier 1 program...We are trying to move in that direction.”
The district’s move toward a more defined, core academic program/curriculum is solidly supported by the research on higher performing urban districts. The lack of a core foundational academic program can be especially deleterious to struggling learners and students with learning disabilities.
Research Stream #2: Increasing Access to the Core Academic Program
Decades of research has demonstrated that the “education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum to the maximum extent possible . . ." (IDEA, 1997, § 601). And by 2014, nearly 96 percent of students with disabilities in United States public schools were served [at least in part] in regular education settings. The debate largely has shifted from providing access to the classroom to providing access to the same general education curriculum and standards. (Quality Counts, 2014. Education Week & Pew Charitable Trust)
This shift from inclusive settings to inclusive access to the general education curriculum is still a work in progress across the nation. A 2004 Education Week national survey, Count me in: Special Education in an Era of Standards, reported that 84% of surveyed teachers did not believe that students in special education should be expected to meet the same set of academic standards as students without disabilities. In addition, approximately 80% of the teachers felt that students with disabilities should not be included in the same state tests as students in general education, especially if the results are used for accountability purposes (Olson, 2004 as cited in McGrew and Evans, 2004).
Anecdotal evidence and feedback from Dallas ISD principals teachers confirm that is shift from inclusive settings to inclusive access to the general education curriculum is still a work in progress in DISD. As one senior district level leader stated, “I think district-wide we try to provide the state TEKS for all students with inclusion as our goal. The district has really pushed inclusion, but this may not be appropriate for as many students as we have.”
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 7 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Research Stream #3: Providing a System of Supports for Student Success
According to a study on higher performing districts (ACT, 20111), “Leaders in higher performing school systems supplement school and classroom-level interventions with targeted support for students who are below grade level.” This effort results in “well- developed pyramids of proven, practical intervention programs and practices.” And given the diversity of student populations and needs in urban school districts, a well developed pyramid of supports will likely require a variety of initiatives and programs to target that are “aligned within a broader vision of student success and academic standards.” (Ahram, et al., 2014). This pyramid of supports is called Response to Interventions (RtI).
Special education is one component of a tiered academic program designed to provide variety of services and settings to meet the academic needs of students in the least restrictive environment – the setting closest to the general education curriculum. The success of RtI hinges on the strength of Tier 1 core academic program. “Though it’s tempting and commonplace for schools to put their energies and focus into planning RtI models around the interventions of Tier 2 and above [including special education], this mindset can be detrimental to creating a process that fosters achievement for all” (Ripp, et al., 2014).
Dallas ISD has been engaging in a concerted effort to improve the district’s RtI model and the connection between the core academic program, RtI, and special education services. As summarized by one district leader, “We would like to make sure special education inclusion teachers are fully aware of and trained in the tier 1 academic program, the RtI model, universal screener data analysis, and intervention programs to support student growth.”
Research Summary Dallas ISD special education services are aimed at increasing access to the core academic program and providing social, emotional, physical, and psychological supports for students as needed and directed in the Individual Education Plans (IEPs). These aims are reflected in the district’s focus on “inclusion” as the primary program model for a large majority of special education students. Noted one curriculum leader, “We are working on equity in access to the good stuff. Within the inclusion model [we ask] are students succeeding and accessing the core academic program?” This aim for more inclusive access through these three research-based strategies is the lens through which the district’s special education programs were analyzed.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 8 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
III. Special Education Program Overview and Document Review
Dallas ISD Academic Program and Special Education Overview
The mission and educational philosophy of the DISD general education academic program are clearly stated in the 2016-17 DISD Education Plan. In accord with the district’s mission, the educational theory of action is to “empower student to learn by providing standards-based curriculum, embedded technology, promoting collaboration, and allowing students to be stakeholders in their own education.” Source: DISD Education Plan 2016-17, Section 1
Key elements of the DISD educational program plan include: High expectations for student effort Rigorous, aligned curriculum Application of learning to real and meaningful situations Opportunities to graduate with skills to be competitive
Within the same planning document, however, the special education program section provided no information regarding the goals or theory of action for special education or information about the connection between special education services and access to the general education curriculum. Review of the Dallas ISD Special Education Operating Guidelines (2013) also revealed no goals, strategy, or directional clarity for special education programming; guidelines are limited to procedural and compliance issues. Interviews with school and central office leaders reinforce this need for clarity regarding special education program goals and direction. This need for direction was notable between special education and three other education program efforts:
1) Special education programming alignment with the core academic program (tier 1) “I don’ think we are consistent with our theory of action for special education...This adds to the fragmentation of our work.” --District leader
“We need to know our special ed. philosophy, model, and program designs. We need a clear design and ‘picture’ for each program area.” –Principal
2) Special education efforts and clarity regarding pre-referral support programs (tier 2 and 3) “There are big gaps in the systems between the core tier 1, RtI, 504, and special education.” --Teacher
“RtI is too complicated and the system for intervention is an exercise in compliance.” –Teacher
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 9 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
3) Special education coherence with early learning programs (PK-2) “The early learning connection to special education is in predominately in PPCD and bilingual PK classrooms.” --District leader
“We need coherence between early childhood and 3rd-12th grades. Early childhood programs are disconnected from curriculum and instruction.” -- District leader
While no overarching special education program direction or goals were evident in the DISD Education Plan, the special education section the district’s plan provides a list of the programs for students with disabilities in DISD. Special education provides services through a continuum of program settings for students with identified disabilities. These program settings include: Activities of Daily Living (self-contained classroom serving students who typically exhibit severe to profound cognitive delays and/or physical disabilities) Functional Living Skills (supports students with significant cognitive disabilities who require direct, intensive instruction) Inclusion (co-teaching model of supports for students in the general education setting; the majority of special education students are served through the inclusion model) Preschool Program for Students with Disabilities (service and supports for three to five year old students) Redirection Services (short-term intense interventions to teach alternative behaviors) Special Education Homebound Services (home-based instruction for students unable to attend a campus program) Total Communication (serves learners with autism spectrum disorders)
Special Education Program Placements In 2016-17, the largest percentage of special education students (41.9%) were placed into a mainstream, or inclusion, educational setting where they received special education and related services in the general classroom for 100 percent of the school day. Twenty- two percent (22.1%) of students enrolled in special education received services in a room outside the general classroom for some portion of the school day (resource room). Related services included but were not limited to physical therapy, occupational therapy, and counseling by a certified or licensed counselor on a regularly scheduled basis. Students placed in “self-contained” settings were provided services in a self-contained program for 50 percent or more of the student’s school day on a regular school campus; 19.7 percent of special education students were in this type of setting. No instructional setting (11.9%) indicated that students received special education services, such as speech therapy, not in an instructional setting. Source: DISD Department of Evaluation and Assessment—Midyear Interim Special Education Report 2016-17
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 10 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Table 2. Special Education Participation by Disability Category
Students are served in the various program placements based on disability determination and the decisions of the ARD committee as described in each students’ Individual Education Plan (IEP).
Source: DISD Internal Report, EA16-519-4, 2016
The most commonly reported primary disabilities among students enrolled in special education during the 2016-17 school year were learning disability (30.4%), autism (16.7%), other health impairment (15%), speech impairment (14.3%), and intellectual disability (14%). These primary disabilities of students enrolled in special education were compared between SY 2010-11 and SY 2016-17 to identify trends. The percentage of students identified to have autism has more than doubled from 6.8 percent in SY 2010-11 to 16.7 percent in SY 2016-17. At the same time, the percentage of students identified to have a learning disability as their primary disability has declined from half (50.1%) of all special education students in SY 2010-11 to one- third (30.5%) of special education students in SY 2015-16. Figure 1 depicts the changing rate of program placements.
Figure 1. Special Education Participation by Disability Category
Special education leaders noted that this program placement trend is not a local phenomenon. The rise in identification of autism spectrum disorder and other health impairments has offset, and may be a causal factor to, the decline in specific learning disability identification. Source: DISD Internal Report, EA16-519-4
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 11 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Document Review In addition to the enrollment, participation, and performance data described above, additional special education documents were examined to inform the special education programs review process. Documents were provided by DISD, retrieved from the Texas Education Agency website, U. S. Department of Education website, and obtained from other external sources/providers. These program documents could generally be categorized into four areas: Special education and general education program information Special education program evaluations and audits Special education staffing and budgeting documents Board reports A more complete list of documents can be found in the appendices section of this report.
IV. Special Education Data and Information Analysis
A limited review of special education data and information was conducted to provide context to the analysis of the Dallas ISD special education program. The data review examined the following DISD statistics and when possible or appropriate, included state, national, and/or urban comparisons: Special education enrollment Special education access Special education budget Special education staffing The data analysis was limited to information provided by the district, readily available national and state statistics, and information provided by other external program reviews and reports.
A. Enrollment and Participation
National Enrollment Comparisons “In 2013–14, the number of children and youth ages 3–21 receiving special education services was 6.5 million, or about 13 percent of all public school students. Among students receiving special education services, 35 percent had specific learning disabilities.” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp The number of children and youth ages 3–21 receiving special education services in the 2012-13 school year was 6.4 million, or about 13 percent of all public school students. (NCES report, “The Condition of Education 2015). Data from the 38th Annual Report to Congress on Implementation of IDEA (2016) noted that in 2014 these 6 million students were served through several programs (U. S. Department of Education, 2016). Conversely, for the last eight years, special education enrollment in Dallas ISD has been below this 13% national average and relatively consistent with a range of 7.0 to 7.7% annually.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 12 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
State Enrollment Comparisons In 2014, Texas had the lowest special education rate among the fifty states with a special education statewide participation rate of 8.6% according to U.S. Department of Education statistics. Figure 2. State Special Education Enrollment Comparisons (2013-14)
Retrieved from NPR.org Article by Bill Zeeble
Graph Credit: Alyson Hurt National Public Radio, 2016
According to the Houston Chronicle [as stated in the Washington Post on 9/18/2016], “Texas is the only state that has limited the percentage of students to whom it will provide special-education services in this manner.” Districts in Texas with more than 8.5 percent of students in special-education services are required to file “corrective action” plans to lower special-education rates. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer- sheet/wp/2016/09/18.
As part of the Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) in Texas, each district’s special education representation rate is compared to the PBMAS cut points for the indicator, and performance levels are assigned as noted below:
Representation PBMAS Level 8.5% or less 0 Between 8.6% and 11.0% 1 Between 11.1% and 15.0% 2 15.1% or more 3 Source: Texas Education Agency PBMAS Manual 2016. Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/pbm/PBMASManuals.aspx
One potential limitation to comparing Texas special education participation rates to other states is the way in which students identified with dyslexia are categorized. In Texas, many dyslexic students are served in a non-special education setting known as 504. Statewide about 2.5% of Texas students, or about 125,000,were identified as dyslexic in the 2014-15 school year (as cited by the Houston Chronicle, March 2015).
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 13 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
If all of these students were considered in the overall special education numbers, the variation between Texas and other states might be mitigated. However, due to the variation in how dyslexic students are served and identified from state to state, the impact was undeterminable by the reviewer. Source: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Houston-news-6133299.php
Texas Urban Comparisons When comparing Dallas ISD to the state average and to district-identified urban comparison districts in Texas in 2016, the Dallas ISD special education rate of 7.0% was lower than the Texas rate of 8.5% and lower than all of the urban comparisons, with the closest comparison being Houston ISD with a rate of 7.3%. As indicated below, three of the five comparison districts indicated a special education rate of 10% or higher.
Special Education Urban District Comparisons Houston 7.3 Austin 10.0 San Antonio 10.2 El Paso 10.2 Dallas 7.0 State 8.5 Source: 2016 PBMAS Reports--provided by DISD Evaluation and Assessment Department
Urban district comparisons of special education representation by ethnic group reveal that DISD has the lowest special education participation for Hispanic students and the second to the lowest participation rate for English language learners, with the ELL rate being approximately half of the ELL special education participation as found in Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso.
Table 3. Urban District Special Education Enrollment Comparisons (2013-14)
District SPED African American Hispanic ELL Representation #SPED #ALL %SPED #SPED #ALL %SPED #SPED #ALL %SPED Houston 7.3 5,109 52,560 9.7 9,026 133,538 6.8 3,427 65,265 5.3 Austin 10.0 1,111 6,523 17.0 5,211 49,068 10.6 2,320 23,272 10.0 San Antonio 10.2 366 3,381 10.8 4,841 48,158 10.2 1,079 10,115 10.7 El Paso 10.2 261 2,187 11.9 5,059 49,944 10.1 1,883 16,288 11.6 Dallas 7.0 3,650 35,739 10.2 6,707 110,846 6.1 3,819 67,882 5.6 State 8.5 71,593 666,832 10.7 229,273 2,763,967 8.3 75,035 979,828 7.7
Source: 2016 PBMAS Reports--provided by DISD Evaluation and Assessment Department
Dallas ISD Special Education Enrollment Trends According to district data provided for the last eight years, enrollment in special education has remained relatively consistent with a range of 7.3* to 7.7% annually. Although one data set reported a low of 7.0.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 14 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Figure 3. State Special Education Enrollment Trends (2009-10 to 2016-17)
*Slight differences in participation percentages between data tables throughout this report are due to the source of the data and the year/timing of reporting.
For example, the 2016 PBMAS report provided by the Assessment and Evaluation Department noted a participation of 7.0%. District internal reporting for the end of that year indicated a 7.5% participation rate.
Source: DISD Internal Report, EA16-519-4
B. Access and Equity
Review of district special education program enrollment and participation data reveals four potential equity issues related to special education access: 1) Improving trends in over-representation of African American students 2) Under-representation of Hispanic students and English language learners 3) Potential barriers to special education through the individual evaluation process 4) Potential barriers to a full continuum of services across schools
Over-Representation of African American Students (with improving trends) In 2015-16, as in other years, a greater proportion of students enrolled in special education were reported to be African American (32.9%) compared to the total percentage of African American students reported by the district (22.6%). This resulted in a difference rate of 10.3 and a PBMAS performance level of three in school year 2015-16. However, this difference rate has been steadily decreasing since 2008-09, and may for the first time fall below 10%. The projected participation rate of 9.2% in 2017 would mark the first time the district received a PBMAS rating of two. This improvement is noteworthy and commendable.
Table 4. African American Student Representation in Special Education: 2010-2017
Source: DISD Department of Evaluation and Assessment Midyear Interim Special Education Report: 2016-17
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 15 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
As stated in the 2013-14 DISD evaluation of special education, “The decline in the difference rate was a consequence of steadily decreasing percentages of special education students who were African Americans. However, it should also be noted that the percentage of total district students who were African Americans had also been declining over the years, thus making it more difficult to close the gap between the special education and overall district African American percentages.”
Under-Representation of Hispanic Students (with improving trends) While African American students have been over-represented in some special education categories, a lower percentage of Hispanic students are enrolled in special education (61.6%) than the overall percentage of Hispanic students in the district (70.2%). This projected difference rate of 8.6% may indicate a need for closer progress monitoring and pre-assessment evaluation for Hispanic students in special education, but it is important to note that under-representation is steadily decreasing over time from -13.9% to -8.6% percent between 2010 and 2017.
Table 5. Hispanic Student Representation in Special Education: 2010-2017
Source: DISD Department of Evaluation and Assessment Midyear Interim Special Education Report: 2016-17
The DISD 2013-14 special education evaluation report noted, “Hispanic students have typically been under represented in special education…as indicated by the negative difference rates reported in PBMAS from 2003-04 to 2013-14.”
Under-Representation of English Language Learners Data on students with limited English proficiency (LEP) reveal a lower proportion of English language learners (ELL) receiving special education services (35%) than the overall proportion of English learners in the district (44%). This projected difference rate of -9.0% is more than double the difference rate of -4.2% in 2010, and as the table below reveals, has consistently increased over time as the district’s ELL population has continued to grow.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 16 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
If this trend continues, possible over-representation of ELL in special education could exceed 10% in the near future.
Table 6. English Language Learner Representation in Special Education: 2010-2017
“Fewer Limited English Proficient (LEP) students were classified as special education students than were expected based on the population of the district as a whole. However, while the Hispanic student difference rate has decreased over the last eight years, the LEP student difference rate has been increasing.” Source: 2016-17 DISD Mid-Year Special Education Evaluation Report
This increasing trend in under-representation of English Language Learners may indicate a need for improvement in identification, pre-referral, and placement procedures for English learners.
Special Education Enrollment Summary Special education enrollment data comparisons lead to several conclusions for consideration and possible district action: Dallas ISD has had a relatively stable and comparatively low overall special education participation rate with a range of 7.3%-7.7% during the past several years. Preliminary data provided by the district indicated that the overall participation rate might be 7.9% this year. Since the 2009-10 school year, African American students have been over- represented in special education with the district receiving a PBMAS level 3 rating each year. However, over-representation has been decreasing consistently, and preliminary data for 2016-17 predict 9.2% disproportionality. The percentage of Hispanic students enrolled in special education (61.6%) is 8.6 percentage points lower than the overall percentage of Hispanic students in the district (70.2%). The proportion of English language learners (ELL) who received special education services (35%) is 9.0 percentage points lower than the proportion of ELL students in the district (44%), and has increased annually.
English Language Learners—Program Access Bilingual/ESL Education Programs and Special Education
Given the data trends relative to English language learners (DNQ and participation), a deeper analysis of programs and services accessible to ELLs was deemed appropriate. Examination of participation in three program areas available to ELLs indicates a possible
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 17 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review issue of competition/disconnection among three possible program service streams for English language learners: Bilingual/English as a Second Language (ESL) services for English language acquisition Speech disorders—a special education disability category for production/articulation of speech Specific learning disability—the most prevalent special education disability category
Potential under-representation of English Language Learners was noted as a concern by Evaluation and Assessment department leadership (2016-17 mid-year evaluation report), and urban comparison data from the 2016 PBMAS report reveal potential ELL under- representation.
Table 7: Special Education Representation by Ethnic Group
African American Hispanic English Language Learner SPED # SPED # All % SPED # SPED # All % SPED # SPED # All % SPED Representation Houston 7.3 5,109 52,560 9.7 9,026 133,538 6.8 3,427 65,265 5.3 Austin 10.0 1,111 6,523 17.0 5,211 49,068 10.6 2,320 23,272 10.0 San Antonio 10.2 366 3,381 10.8 4,841 48,158 10.1 1,079 10,115 10.7 El Paso 10.2 261 2,187 11.9 5,059 49,944 10.1 1,883 16,288 11.6 Dallas 7.0 3,650 35,739 10.2 6,707 110,846 6.1 3,819 67,882 5.6 State 8.5 71,593 666,832 10.7 229,273 2,763,967 6.3 75,035 979,828 7.7
Source: Texas Education Agency, 2016 PBMAS Reports (Recreated from data provided by Dept. of Evaluation and Assessment)
Examination of data regarding program participation and denial of services for English learners also confirm this potential under-representation of ELL in special education.
Table 8: LEP Programs Participation for English Language Learners English Language Learners—Limited English Proficient (LEP) % Grade LEP Total BE ESL Sheltered Denied Not Served LEP SPED EC 22 10 (45.5) 2 (9.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.5) 0 (0.0) 22 (100.0) PK 5911 5592 (94.6) 188 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 108 (1.8) 1 (0.0) 120 (2.0) K 5873 5326 (90.7) 216 (3.7) 0 (0.0) 280 (4.8) 5 (0.1) 221 (3.8) 1 6217 5590 (89.9) 217 (3.5) 0 (0.0) 342 (5.5) 1 (0.0) 311 (5.0) 2 6359 5742 (90.3) 203 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 349 (5.5) 1 (0.0) 343 (5.4) 3 6553 5863 (89.5) 202 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 417 (6.4) 1 (0.0) 360 (5.5) 4 6455 5746 (89.0) 187 (2.9) 0 (0.0) 448 (6.9) 1 (0.0) 394 (6.1) 5 6261 5447 (87.0) 215 (3.4) 0 (0.0) 510 (8.1) 1 (0.0) 404 (6.5) 6 5496 5 (0.1) 593 (10.8) 4114 (74.8) 434 (7.9) 0 (0.0) 349 (6.3) 7 5154 1 (0.0) 609 (11.8) 3630 (70.4) 356 (6.9) 7 (0.1) 383 (7.4) 8 4640 1 (0.0) 517 (11.1) 3481 (75.0) 370 (8.0) 2 (0.0) 374 (8.1) 9 4819 4 (0.1) 1096 (22.7) 3013 (62.5) 346 (7.2) 6 (0.1) 368 (7.6) 10 2962 1 (0.0) 457 (15.4) 2167 (73.2) 222 (7.5) 3 (0.1) 275 (9.3) 11 1827 0 (0.0) 247 (13.5) 1345 (73.6) 163 (8.9) 1 (0.1) 201 (11.0) 12 1320 0 (0.0) 159 (12.0) 1022 (77.4) 64 (4.8) 9 (0.7) 208 (15.8) All 69871 39330 (56.3) 5108 (7.3) 18772 (26.9) 4410 (6.3) 39 (0.1) 4333 (6.2)
Source: Recreated from https://mydata.dallasisd.org/SL/SD/ENROLLMENT/Enrollment.sjp Retrieved 2/7/2017
In addition to the data indicating potential ELL under-representation in special education programs, anecdotal information from teachers and parents of English language learners
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 18 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review provide evidence to indicate that some English language learners who are identified as learning disabled may be choosing to participate in either a special education inclusion setting or in a program for English language acquisition.
These two program services—bilingual/ESL and special education—are not mutually exclusive. Students in need of both services must be afforded both. For example, there should be an inclusion classroom at every middle school that also provides sheltered instruction/ESL services. As noted by one school leader, “We may not be serving all the EL [English learner] students who could qualify. I wonder if we are placing them in bilingual and then assuming it’s about language acquisition only.”
Potential Barriers to Special Education in the Initial Evaluation Process
Initial Evaluation and Qualification—the DNQ Issue A third potential access and equity issue relative to special education is the rate of individual evaluations for special education placement that result in a designation of Does Not Quality (DNQ), which means the student is not placed in special education. While comparative data for DNQ rates is limited, according to the minutes from the 2013 Texas School Alliance meeting, about 75,000 students were evaluated for special education that school year, and about 16,000 did not qualify (DNQ) after initial testing. This is a rate of about 21%. Retrieved from http://portal.esc20.net
This rate was confirmed as a common benchmark rate by Dr. Ruth Turner, a special education expert and consultant to districts across the state. According to Dr. Turner, there is a “high DNQ rate in the district” adding that an expected range might be 10-20%. DNQ rates for Dallas ISD are higher than the aforementioned anecdotal state average of 21%, and have been above that for at least the past four years. In 2015-16 the Dallas ISD overall DNQ rate was 29.8% and the DNQ rate for English language learners was 33%. Assuming the Texas School Alliance estimate is accurate, this is well above the state average, and the DNQ rate for English learners been between 33% and 37.7% for the past four years.
Table 9. Dallas ISD Rates of “Does Not Qualify” –Individual Assessment Determination School Year DNQ District DNQ - English Overall Learners 2012-13 426 (22.8%) 149 (35%) 2013-14 603 (28.4%) 203 (33.7%) 2014-15 666 (26.7%) 251 (37.7%) 2015-16 694 (29.8%) 229 (33%) Data provided by DISD Department of Special Education.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 19 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
While DNQ data were not provided or found for all urban comparison districts, DISD leadership was able to obtain DNQ estimates for a few Texas districts. Clear Creek ISD 5% Leander ISD 22% Mesquite ISD 25% Katy ISD 7-10% Northside ISD 25%
A wide range in reported DNQ rates are seen in these anecdotal samples, but no comparison was at or near the rate of DNQ for English Language Learners in DISD. As one interviewee noted, there is “a culture of DNQ in the IE [individual evaluation] department.”
Barriers to Access to a Full Continuum of Services A fourth potential barrier to equitable access to special education services in DISD is the lack of a full continuum of services at all DISD schools. Disabilityrights.org defines a full continuum of services as “the range of services which must be available to the students of a school district so that they may be served in the least restrictive environment” http://www.disabilityrights.org/glossary.htm This continuum should be developed, implemented, and supported to ensure successful implementation of each student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). District with programs/services that have few students may “cluster” these services at one school and not offer this service at other schools, requiring students to be transported from their neighborhood school to the cluster site. In Dallas ISD, these clustered programs are referred to as special education units.
In DISD, access to a full continuum of special education services seems to be impeded in three ways: 1) The nature of clustering “units” around the district as described above can limit access when units are at capacity and/or when parents choose not to have their child travel to different school. 2) The lack of a short-term, intensive “resource” setting at most schools can limit access to individualized instruction for students in the inclusion-only setting. (This appears to be most notable for students significantly below grade level.) 3) The co-teach staffing model in DISD is a “push in” support model, which means the special education inclusion teacher is not in classrooms with students for the entire class/subject time. Rather, they serve students on a “minutes of required service” model.
Special education leaders in DISD have developed a robust plan for addressing these three issues. With support of outside special education experts, DISD has designed a full access improvement model called Destination Access which would move most special education “units” from cluster sites around the district back to the neighborhood school. While a few low incidence programs would likely stay centralized (Activities of Daily Living, Pre-School Program, Deaf Education, Vision Impairment), most students currently in units would have access to needed programming and services at their neighborhood school. Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 20 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
In addition to de-clustering programs, the Destination Access model would provide for a short-term “resource” type setting for inclusion students allowing access to additional, individualized supports in addition to instruction the inclusion classroom setting. This could augment learning opportunities in the push-in support model by providing students one additional avenue for learning support when the inclusion teacher is not available in the general education classroom. As one DISD principal noted, “Destination Access is a really good idea. It would allow us to have a fuller continuum of services.”
C. Analysis of Enrollment, Access, and Equity Data
Analysis of the enrollment, access, and equity data lead the reviewer to several possible conclusions for consideration by DISD: 1. There appears to be under-enrollment of students in special education as a percentage of the overall population, thereby limiting access to programs and services that DISD students might have access to in other districts in Texas or across the nation. 2. Over-representation of African American students in special education has been a focused effort in DISD. While over-representation is still evident, significant improvements have been made over time, and DISD projects this rate to be +9.2% this year. 3. Potential under-representation of Hispanic students is evident in multi-year data trends. However, the difference rate is decreasing over time, and DISD projects this rate to be -8.6%, marking the second consecutive year of less than 10%. 4. Under-representation of English language learners is evident in multi-year data trends, and the trend line is increasing annually, and if it continues on this trajectory may soon exceed -10%. 5. The rate of evaluation processes resulting in a determination of Does Not Qualify (DNQ) is higher than the anecdotal statewide rate, and significantly higher for English language learners. 6. Student access to a full continuum of special education services seems to be impeded due to the nature of clustering “units” around the district, the absence of a “resource-type” short term pull out setting for inclusion students, and the system of scheduling inclusion teachers as push-in support in classrooms at various points during the school day.
Data Conclusions Should DISD set a goal of addressing potential low enrollment and under-representation issues, the impact on special education participation—and consequently other issues such as staffing, budgeting, and facilities—could be significant.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 21 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
For example (using 2016 PBMAS data): If the overall participation rate in special education were 10% (mirroring some urban comparisons), there would be an additional 3,511 students in special education. If 7.9 % of the 69,781 English Language Learners were in special education (mirroring the 2017 projected SPED enrollment in DISD), there would be an additional 1,180 ELL students receiving special education services. If 10% of the 69,781 English Language Learners were in special education (mirroring some urban comparison districts), there would be an additional 2,969 students.
These data conclusions are based on “what if” scenarios, but are provided as possible inputs to future special education goals and planning efforts.
D. Student Performance
To ascertain special education student performance relative to the District’s stated goals, student performance data and special education program information were provided for review. In addition to the state accountability system which rates schools and districts, TEA has also developed an ancillary accountability system known as the Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS) for four program areas, one of which is special education. Data from both systems—the Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) and the PBMS system were examined.
For special education, PBMAS indicators evaluated include STAAR performance, STAAR participation, and graduation rate, along with other non-academic indicators, such as the over-representation of particular ethnic groups in special education and the disproportionality in placements of special education students (which were discussed earlier in this report). A summary of student performance on STAAR and other PBMAs indicators was analyzed as context to this review.
STAAR Performance As shown in the Table 10, the percentage of special education students reaching the satisfactory level on STAAR 2016 increased in every subject 3-8 and EOC as compared to SY 2014-15.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 22 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Table 10: Percentage of Special Education Students at the Satisfactory STAAR Standard
Students improved the most on the STAAR 3-8 Science and Algebra EOC exams (13.6 and 10.8 percentage points respectively).
Source: DISD Evaluation and Assessment Report – (EA16-519-4)
Statewide comparison of STAAR results for special education students indicate that DISD students outperformed the state average in some grade levels (not indicated on the chart), but in most instances a higher percent of state SPED students met the satisfactory performance level than did DISD students.
Figure 4. Percent of Special Education Students at STAAR Satisfactory Level on 3-8 Tests
DISD and statewide STAAR performance differences range from 1.2% in Math to 2.8% in Reading.
Source: DISD Evaluation and Assessment Report – (EA16-519-4)
End-of-Course Assessment Performance The percent of students meeting standard on STAAR End-of-Course exams were near or above the overall state special education performance averages.
Figure 5. Percent of Special Education Students Meeting Standard on End-of-Course Assessments
DISD students outperformed statewide averages in Algebra, English I, and English II.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 23 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Graduation Rates Graduation rates from the 2016 TAPR report indicated about 14% gap between the 4- year graduation rates of special education students and the overall graduating population of students. Table 11. Graduation Rate Comparisons for Special Education Students-Class of 2015
Graduating State All DISD All DISD SPED
4-Year Graduates 89.0% 87.9% 73.5%
Graduates and GED 89.6% 88.0% 73.8%
Graduates, GED, and Continuing 93.7% 92.0% 86.9% Education
Table 12. Graduation Rate Longitudinal for Special Education Students
Special Education 2012 2013 2014 2015 Graduating
4-Year Graduates 68.0% 76% 73.7% 73.5% Source: Texas Education Agency, TAPR Report, 2016
The graduation rate for Dallas ISD special education students who graduated in four years was 73.5 % compared with statewide special education graduation, which was 78.2%.
District leadership is well aware of the performance gaps on the state accountability system, and is working to focus the efforts of special education improvement efforts on students of greatest need.
E. Staffing and Budgeting
Special Education Staffing Although the purpose of this review was not directly related to staffing and funding, these two areas are critical inputs to the quality of special education programming in DISD, which was the focus of this review. Budget parameters drive staffing allocations, and special education teachers and support staff carry out the programs and functions required to serve special education students.
Teacher Staffing The current system of teacher staffing uses a range of student numbers to generate staff positions based on the instructional setting (program). Four-year staffing history indicates a relatively stable teacher to pupil allocation.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 24 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Table 13. Special Education Teacher Staffing (2013-2016) Dallas ISD Special Special Pupil to Education Education Teacher Special education Students Teachers Ratio staffing has been relatively stable over 2013 11,739 1,000.9 1:11.8 time, mirroring the 2014 11,792 1,020.5 1:11.5 stable student 2015 11,598 1,115.8 1:10.4 enrollment numbers. 2016 11,632 1,089.4 1:10.7 Source: Texas Education Agency, TAPR Reports (SY 2012-13 to 2015-16)
This formula-driven staffing process applies to the instructional setting only, it does not seem to take into consideration the variation of student needs that occur within a particular instructional setting or program. Several site visit principals indicated that “leveling” of staff—reallocation of teacher allocations—occurs only once each fall. If enrollment changes over the year, there does not appear to be a systemic response to efficiently redeploy or hire new staff. As noted in a DISD staff deployment plan from October 2015, this system results in “wide variation of adult: student ratios from campus to campus.” Source: Destination Access—Staff Deployment Plan, 2014
Table 14. Special Education Staffing – Urban District Comparison 2016 District Special Special Pupil to Education Education Teacher Dallas has a lower pupil to Student Teachers Ratio teacher ratio than Houston and Count slightly lower than Austin. Dallas and Houston have Austin 8,304 707.5 1:11.7 roughly the same special Dallas 11,632 1,089.4 1:10.7 education enrollment percentage. Houston 15,884 899 1:17.9 Austin has a 10% special Source: Texas Education Agency, 2016 TAPR Report education enrollment.
Evidence from staffing comparisons indicates that the pupil to teacher ratio in special education in Dallas ISD is comparable to other districts.
Special Education Department Central Administration Staffing The DISD Department of Special Education staff serves several purposes and provides a variety of services to special education students including initial and on- going assessment, speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy, social/psychological services, and others. One area of special education service that was raised as an area for improvement across schools and departments was the individual evaluation process. This individual evaluation (IE) is the assessment
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 25 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review process by which a students’ eligibility for special education services is determined/informed. This assessment process is managed by the district’s diagnosticians and licensed specialists in school psychology.
In 2013, DISD contracted for a review of the individual evaluation processes. This review was conducted by Dr. Leslie James, Ms. Karen Hill, and Ms. Karen English, independent consultants with extensive experience in education, including special education in urban settings, resulting in a report titled, “Review of Individual Evaluation in the Special Education Department (2014-15).”
Number of IE Staff—As determined by the IE Program Review Report, DISD employed 106.49 educational diagnosticians and 71.25 licensed specialists in school psychology (LSSPs) to serve 11,742 students with disabilities. In the study year (2104-15), DISD’s ratio of evaluation staff to special education students was 1:66. When DISD was compared to the 10 largest districts in Texas, DISD ranked fourth in the ratio of evaluators to students. In addition, each evaluation staff served fewer special educations students than the state average. Source: 2014-15 Individual Evaluation Department Review
Table 15. Special Education Individual Evaluation Department Staffing Comparisons IE Staff Comparisons District # Diags #LSSPs Total IE District # SpEd Ratio of IE District Diags+LS Enrollment Students to SpEd Ranking Houston 169.45 9 178.45SPs 202,586 15599.12 1:87 #7 Dallas 106.89 71.25 178.14 158,680 11742.32 1:66 #4 Cy-Fair 81.97 31.5 113.47 109,733 7791.04 1:69 #5 Northside 0.5 71.5 72 99,426 11036.29 1:153 #9 Austin 17.05 37.71 54.76 86,233 8623.30 1:157 #10 Ft. Worth 56.98 39.38 96 83,255 6160.87 1:64 #3 Ft. Bend 41.95 29 70.95 69,123 4354.75 1:61 #2 Northeast 5 38 43 67,701 5889.99 1:137 #8 Aldine 74.18 6 80.18 65,415 4513.64 1:56 #1 Arlington 51.94 17.94 69.88 64,913 5128.13 1:73 #6 Statewide 3827.81 1614.01 5441.82 4,880,113 419689.72 1:77
Diversity of IE Staff – According to a “Staff Count and Ethnicity” report generated on 10/15/2014, the IE Department is considered to be fairly diverse, although the diversity of I.E. staff is not reflective of the demographics of DISD students served. As indicated in the following chart, there is a greater percentage of African-American and White diagnosticians and LSSPs than there are Hispanic evaluators; however, the majority of students in DISD are in Hispanic.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 26 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Table 16. IE Department Staff Count by Ethnicity-2014 (Diagnosticians and School Psychologists) Individual Evaluation Department Ethnicity Title Total AA %AA H %H W %W % Count Other
Diagnostician 108.5 43 39.6% 24 22.1% 40 36.9% 2.8% LSSP 33.5 7 20.9% 8 2.4% 19 56.7% Total 142 50 35.2% 32 22.5% 59 41.5% 2.1%
Source: 2014-15 Individual Evaluation Department Review
This variance between the number of Hispanic diagnosticians and LSSPs relative to the Hispanic and English Language Learner populations in DISD should be noted by district leaders as it may have an impact on the inordinately high number of Hispanic and English Language Learner DNQ determinations. Discussion with special education leadership in January 2017 indicate this variance has not changed since the 2014 review, but DISD leadership has a goal of increasing the number of bilingual and Hispanic diagnosticians and LSSPs to more closely reflect the DISD student population.
Special Education Budget
As has been previously stated, Dallas ISD has a relative stable and low overall special education enrollment as compared to the state, most other Texas urban comparison districts and as compared to the national average. Comparison of the 2015-16 school year budget for special education reveals that
Houston has the lowest per pupil expenditure at $599 and is the closest comparable to DISD in overall special education enrollment percentages. Dallas and El Paso ISD per pupil allocations were near the statewide average of $867, which Austin and San Antonio had the highest per pupil expenditures of these comparison districts, with $1376 and $1086, respectively.
Table 17. Special Education Budget – State and District Comparison 2016 District Total Budget Per Pupil Statewide $4,581,520,023 $867 Austin $114,607,377 $1376 Dallas $142,723,366 $900 El Paso $52,002,373 $870 Houston $128,733,754 $599 San Antonio $57,592,855 $1086 Source: 1015-16 Budgeted Financial Data, Texas Education Agency. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 27 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Staffing and Budget Summary
While this limited staffing and budget comparison is not intended to imply any causal factors, it is interesting to note that across schools, all principals and most teachers indicated that staff allocations were insufficient to meet student needs, and that oftentimes budgets were also insufficient for access to needed resources. The comparison data do not seem to support these assertions. A deeper analysis of the potential causal factors of these perceptions may be warranted. As will be more fully detailed in the feedback and findings section of this report, this review process revealed a few potential factors that may be impacting the effectiveness of staffing and budgeting such as inflexible allocation formulas, lack of required professional development, competing programs/initiatives, lack of clarity and efficiency in roles and responsibilities, and inefficiencies in processes and systems. As stated by one central administration leader, “The current staffing model should support the full continuum of services (including resource). However, principals sometimes need support to use staffing appropriately.”
V. Promising Practices in Dallas ISD Ten schools were visited to observe the special education program in action and to solicit feedback for improvement from classroom teachers, special education teachers, instructional coaches, and principals. During these 3-hour visits, the reviewer interviewed the principal and other campus leaders, met with a teacher focus group, and conducted classroom walks to observe the special education programming in action. Throughout the site visits and interview processes, commitment to effective teaching and learning was evident. Two student-centered core beliefs were evident throughout the review process: District-wide commitment to ensuring all students meet or exceed Individual Education Plan (IEP) expectations, and have the supports needed to do so A sense of personal accountability for the achievement of students was shared by all
While many promising and effective practices were observed and discussed during the course of this review, Figure 6 highlights some of the special education practices identified as successful strategies by Dallas ISD principals, teachers, and program leaders. These promising practices are aligned to research on effective special education programs as described in the research review section of this report.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 28 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Figure 6. Promising Practices in DISD Special Education Classrooms Elementary Schools
1. C. F. Carr Elementary School – Collaborative Planning At Carr Elementary, general education and special education teachers plan together to individualize instruction for special education students in the inclusion setting.
“We are IR for special ed., and have an action plan. Our focus is on inclusion”–Teacher
“Inclusion and classroom teachers plan together for inclusion students.”-- Principal
2. L.O. Donald Elementary School – Responsive, Proactive Parent Engagement
At Donald Elementary, bilingual special education parents are regularly and proactively engaged in their students’ educational experiences, and they collaborate with school leadership in improving student access to student- responsive programs. Bilingual special education parents are provided with a portable building classroom to hold meetings, communicate with school leaders and teachers, and to collaborate and support one another.
“Creating this space for our parents to work together and communicate with us is one way to support them and encourage parental involvement.” - - Principal
Photo reprinting permission granted by L.O. Donald Elementary parent group
3. Hotchkiss Elementary School – Continuum of Services and Responsive Programming Hotchkiss Elementary School is piloting a program providing a short-term “pull out” setting for high-functioning autism students needing additional assistance in below level content and skills.
“This is for high-functioning autistic students who need a level of support in addition to inclusion. This is not to replace the inclusion program/ placement, but in addition to it.” –Principal
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 29 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
4. McNair Elementary School – Friday Night Lights: Extended Learning Time McNair Elementary School implements an extended learning time weekly for students in need of additional instruction.
“Students stay on Friday for 3-hour extended time. Dinner and transportation are provided. Participation averages about 100 students.” – Principal
5. Titche Elementary School –Teacher Engagement in School Planning Titche Elementary teachers are engaged in identifying and improving factors that influence student success.
“We use Michael Fullan’s model of planning looking at proactive indicators of success, such as school climate, teacher quality, leadership effectiveness, increased learning time, family/community engagement. And teachers lead this work.” –Principal
Middle Schools 1. Dade Middle School – Professional Learning Community Support Dade Middle schools teachers are provided with time and supports for collaborative planning to meet the needs of inclusion students.
“Dade Middle School teachers have a PLC for the special education team and area part of the PLC for the content team, also.” –Principal
2. Garcia Middle School – Strategic Scheduling for Special Education Special education students are scheduled first each year to ensure access to the services and courses they need.
“From an inclusion standpoint, I think we have an effective scheduling process.” –Teacher
3. Piedmont Middle School – Vertical and Horizontal Collaborative Planning Piedmont teachers are provided with time and supports to plan for the needs of all special education students.
“Special education inclusion teacher have 2 planning periods--one for the special ed. team and one with their content area PLC. “We are invested in the power of 2. We really do co-teach at Piedmont.” --Principal
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 30 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
High Schools
1. Conrad High School – Common Collaboration and Planning Protocol Conrad High school teachers use a common collaboration protocol.
“A cornerstone of our teaching and learning process is our collaboration document, which is a process between regular ed. and special ed. is based upon a school-wide protocol developed at Conrad HS.” --Principal
2. Woodrow Wilson High School – Program Access for Hearing Impaired Students Woodrow Wilson High School teachers, leaders, and parents of hearing impaired students in the Deaf Education Program work diligently to ensure students have access to a full academic program, including electives.
“We pride ourselves on providing equal access to everything that a general education student has.” – Teacher
District-Level 1. Coherence in Academic Program -- Managed Performance Empowerment District leadership is in the process of developing a theory of action for what will be held “tight and loose” at schools relative to the core academic program and special education services.
“We need to get back to the time of a coherent tier 1 program... We have lost coherence across schools…but we are trying to move in that direction. –District Program Leader
2. Moving Toward a Full Continuum of Services at All Schools -- Destination Access The district is committed to moving most clustered programs, “units,” to neighborhood schools, thereby increasing student access to services in their home school. “Destination Access? The philosophy is great, keeping kids in the neighborhood.” –Principal
Dallas ISD parents, teachers, principals, and central support leaders are to be commended for these promising practices and should consider developing a formal system for sharing effective special education practices across schools, if such a system does not already exist.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 31 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review VI. Special Education Program Feedback for Improvement
Ten schools were visited, during which principals and teachers were interviewed, and special education classrooms were visited. Multiple district-level leaders were interviewed and focus groups were conducted with parents, teachers, and principals. While a more complete list of interviewees and focus groups may be found in the appendix section of this report, feedback was solicited from the following people and groups.
Focus groups were conducted with the following: • Parent Center representatives • Executive Directors—representative • Special education parents group from school leadership • Bilingual special education • Special Education Department parents leaders • Teachers—special education and • Teaching and Learning Division general education leaders • Teachers at ten site visit schools • Evaluation and Assessment • Principals—representative group Department leaders
Individual interviews were conducted with: • 10 principals at site visit schools • Early Learning leadership • School Leadership • Evaluation and Assessment representatives Department leaders • Teaching and Learning Division • Special Education Department leadership – various departments leaders
Participants were asked to respond to the interview questions shown in Figure 7. While not every question was addressed by some respondents, feedback provided sufficient information to develop a general understanding of the district’s special education programs and respondents’ perceptions of special education programming in DISD.
Figure 7. Interview Questions
1. Please describe the district’s overarching theory of action, direction, and/or goals for special education. 2. What is the current state of the district’s special education services toward this direction and attainment of these goals? 3. Please summarize special education student performance data and your goals/targets for improvement? What are the data trends, and what do you think they indicate? 4. Please describe the district’s tier 1 academic program/curriculum? What is the alignment between the tier 1 academic core and special education programming/ resources/placements? Strengths? Areas for improvement? 5. What specific efforts are underway directed at improving outcomes for students with disabilities?
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 32 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review 6. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the manner in which the district identifies students for services? Specifically, English language learners who may also benefit from special education? 7. Please describe your system of supports and interventions for students. How are these interventions accessed and used to scaffold equitable access to the tier 1 academic program? 8. How do you communicate academic/other progress to parents and students? And to what extent are student aware of, engaged in, and co-managers of their learning progress (goals, measures, tracking, etc.)? 9. In an ideal world, what would district support for special education look like? 10. Is there anything else you would like to add?
In addition to interview, focus groups, and site visits, an online survey was made available to principals at non-site visit schools soliciting feedback for special education program improvement. One hundred fourteen principals responded to the online survey. Feedback and recommendations from these various groups and settings are summarized in figures 8-13.
Parent Feedback and Recommendations
Figure 8. Parent Center Feedback Summary What’s Working Well Improvements Needed (samples of positive feedback) (common suggestions) • There are some great • Teacher quality varies from school to school and across programs teachers and principals • Better, mandatory training for teachers and assistants • Communication with parents • Transition between • Improve the general education curriculum programs is better now than in the past (for some • Transition between school levels students) • Individual assessment and DNQ* • More data and information on student progress • Improve access to needed technologies • School leadership and special ed. work together better • Parent Center training, support, and engagement
Figure 9. Bilingual Parent Feedback Summary What’s Working Well Improvements Needed (samples of positive feedback) (common suggestions) • The translation office is • Need for better communication and translation helpful, but not always • Bilingual special education leadership is needed available • Explain bilingual education and special education programs options more clearly to parents* • Great teachers in some of • Better training for teachers is critical our programs, especially TC (autism) • ARD translation is not effective, bilingual diagnosticians are needed • Involve students in more school programs and opportunities • Translation of ARDS is not timely • Front office customer service and communication are lacking • Assessment process and ARD processes take too much time, are not well communicated, and too often parents aren’t engaged *4 of 6 parents of English language learners reported confusion about the “dual service” nature of Bilingual/ESL and special education. Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 33 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Figure 10. Network Parents Feedback Summary What’s Working Well Improvements Needed (samples of positive feedback) (common suggestions) • Testing Accommodation • Teacher training in acceptance and equity* • Equitable access to learning materials and resources • Inclusion and Social • Increased access to general education program Supports • Follow-through with commitments • Dealing with Issues • Smaller student groups in high-needs pull out setting programs • Better communication between special ed. and general ed. teachers • Move Toward More Parent • Better ways to communicate with parents Involvement • Middle school transitions (disorder, scheduling confusion)
Teacher, Principal, and Central Administration Feedback and Recommendations
Figure 11. Teacher Feedback Summary What’s Working Well Improvements Needed (samples of positive feedback) (common suggestions) • Principal leadership is • Flexibility in staffing ratios and staff support appreciated • Need resource setting for short-term instruction • Need clear direction and program models • Autism program expectations and • Access to and timely replacement of instructional resources curriculum are clearly • Additional professional development defined • Simplify RtI process and systems • Responsive support team from special education department • The move toward a • Diagnosticians as case managers; not teachers continuum of services is supported by teachers, • Data systems do not “talk to each other” especially as related to a • Better, streamlined assessment process resource-type setting option • Substitutes for teacher assistants, long-term subs needed
Figure 12. Principal Feedback Summary What’s Working Well Improvements Needed (samples of positive feedback) (common suggestions) • Autism program and • Clear vision for special education; high expectations for students curriculum • Create a “map” of special education programs • Required teacher professional development • Move toward Destination Access if staff and facilities • Improve tier 1, RtI, and 504 connections are addressed • Responsive special education department • Teachers should not be ARD facilitators/managers • Move toward a more • Assign full time diagnosticians with principal engagement coherent, connected • Improve assessment system: Fix the DNQ issue academic program • Improve data and technology systems • Staffing ratios are insufficient, arbitrary without principal input • Substitute crisis for teachers & teacher assistants • Improve transitions of students between levels
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 34 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Figure 13. Central Administration Departments What’s Working Well Improvements Needed (samples of positive feedback) (common suggestions) • Move toward a more • Need clear direction and program models coherent, connected • System of professional development for teachers academic program • Improved data and technology systems • More effective communication and engagement between Special • Move toward a full Education Department and School Leadership continuum of services at all schools • Diagnosticians as case managers; not teachers • Improved engagement opportunities for parents, teachers, and • Strengthening the district’s principals in special education decision-making professional development • School visit protocol for calibrating programs across schools system • Shared accountability for implementation and support of special education service models
Analysis of this feedback retrieved through the interviews, focus groups, school site visits, and surveys—and in consideration of the document/data analysis—a set of findings emerged relative to the improvement of special education programs, resources, and student supports. Feedback themes included:
1. Clarity and direction in special education programming 2. Equitable access to a full continuum of services 3. Staffing and organizational roles 4. System of supports to schools 5. Communication and engagement
Theme 1. Clarity and Direction in Special Education Programming
A feedback stream across all role groups revealed that the district’s academic programs and services lack coherence and clear connections to each other. Two categories of feedback related to coherence and clarity included curriculum coherence and clarity in special education service models.
Representative quotes related to theme 1: “We need to “clearly define what is expected in each program. Autonomy is important but clear direction and expectations are critical.”
“We really need to get to a more coherent literacy and math program. I 100% agree that we need to get a vertically aligned curriculum program.”
“I know the overall district goals, but don’t have clear direction/goals about the theory of action or goals for special education.”
As recommended in the 2010 NCEA Core Practices Audit of Dallas ISD, “In a large urban district such as Dallas ISD, it is essential for the highly mobile student population to receive access to the same curriculum at each campus; the efforts of district leaders to ensure this are highly commended.” Source: DISD Core Practices Audit, p. 10
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 35 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Theme 2: Equitable access to a full continuum of services
Feedback and information that coalesced into the theme two, equitable access to a full continuum of services, are inclusive of three ideas: 1. Improving the initial individual assessment process resulting in more equitable access to special education as measures by fewer DNQs and equitable representation across student groups. 2. Developing a full continuum of services at all schools with fewer centralized units/cluster programs and access to a resource-type pull out setting at all schools 3. Ensuring all programs for English language learners (ELL) are available to special education students (example: sheltered instruction / ESL classes in the inclusion setting)
Representative quotes related to theme 2: “We’ve continued to move toward a full inclusion model, so some schools have no Resource.”
“The time for initial assessment is far too long. Sometime 6 weeks to 3 months and a student is not getting supports in that time.”
“Diagnosticians’ work seems to not be calibrated…different determinations at different schools.”
“DNQs should have an automatic review process.”
“The district is too often not willing to assess early learning students.”
“I get a lot of Hispanic parent calls who feel they are not being served well.”
Theme 3: Ineffective special education staffing allocations and unclear staff roles/responsibilities
Key ideas in theme three related to staffing include: Teachers should not be serving as ARD facilitators Flexible staffing for resource setting and a full continuum of services Central support for the substitute teacher problem in high-needs settings Professional development needed for all teachers of special education students
Representative quotes related to theme 3:
“Diagnosticians should be assigned to schools full time and take over the ARDs. Bilingual diagnosticians are needed.”
“The district should provide training, needed resources, and the staff to implement fully the programs, with differentiated supports for schools.”
“We need a group of permanent substitutes for teachers and assistants in every school every day, and they should be placed in highest need areas first.”
“We get no professional development to meet our students’ needs. We need strategies and practices for working with our special needs students.” Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 36 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Theme 4: Lack of clear, reliable systems of supports to schools
Feedback and information across role groups indicated a need for improvement in supports to schools including: Organization of special education department staff to ensure clear leadership of programs and to provide effective and efficient technical and responsive supports Data system inefficiency and redundancy are time-consuming, not focused on improving opportunities for students, and are often seen as compliance functions Co-accountability for job enactment between special education staff and schools is needed
Representative quotes related to theme 4:
“The central system is very complex to navigate, supports system are unclear, and often unresponsive.”
“Data] systems should talk to each other and need to not change so often.”
“[We need] more frequent support visits from central support staff.”
“Diagnosticians seem to have the last word or the only word at an ARD. When there is disagreement at an ARD, [we need] some external review process.”
Theme 5: Need for communication and engagement in special education program direction
All represented role groups indicated a need for better communication and engagement including: Engagement of parents, principals, and teachers in sped leadership and decision-making Communication systems improvement Response time for communication requests from schools
Representative quotes related to theme 5: “We need much better communication between central and schools… a more formal system; assigned central support staff, etc.”
“Special education and regular education seem to be separate entities. Its’ as if regular ed., special ed., and RtI don't work together.”
“Communication with the special ed. department is almost impossible.”
“Clarify the message that bilingual education and special education are not mutually exclusive.”
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 37 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
VII. Special Education Program Review Findings
Analysis of the feedback and information retrieved through the interviews, focus groups, school site visits, surveys, and document/data analysis revealed a set of common ideas, or findings relative to the improvement of special education programs, resources, and student supports. While many promising and effective practices were evident, the findings and recommendations are focused on improvement. Five key improvement findings emerged from this coalescing process.
The five improvement findings of the review are: 1. There is a need for improvement in coherence and alignment between and among special education and core academic programs, bilingual/ESL programs, and early learning. 2. Barriers exist to equitable access to a full continuum of services for some students, most notably English learners, students who fall into the DNQ category, students in need of services located in centralized units, and potential students represented by the 7% overall special education rate. 3. School personnel perceive rigid staffing allocation formulas and unclear staff responsibilities as hindrances to effective use of staff to meet students’ needs. 4. There is not a clear or widely understood system of supports to schools regarding the deployment and use of centralized special education staff. 5. There is a high need for improved communication and engagement in special education direction and programming.
These findings were expanded for clarity through descriptive indicators and are detailed in Table 18.
Table 18. Special Education Review Findings and Indicators Findings Indicators 1. 1.A The philosophy, direction, goals, and strategy for special education are not clearly Clarity in articulated; nor are they well understood at the school level. Direction and Programming 1.B Educational programming and direction lacks cohesion and alignment between and among special education, general education, response to intervention (RtI) and early learning. 1.C Expectations regarding special education program models lack sufficient clarity and/or professional development to ensure broad understanding from school to school. 2. 2.A Low special education participation rates as compared to other Texas and national Equitable urban districts may indicate a lack of access to needed supports for some DISD students. Access to a Full 2.B English Language Learners data indicate potential under-represented in special Continuum of education programs, most notably specific learning disability and speech/language. Services 2.C The comparatively high rate of “Did Not Qualify” designations after individual evaluation processes, especially for English Language Learners, indicates a need for improvement in the methods and assessment tools used to determine eligibility for special education.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 38 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review 3. 3.A. Special education staffing comparisons do not indicate that DISD is under-staffed in Staffing and special education; however, staffing allocations are not clearly understood and may not be Organizational equitably applied and supported across schools and feeder patterns. Roles 3.B Roles and responsibilities for central administration special education staff functions are not clearly communicated, widely understood, or sustained over time. 3.C Assigning teachers to serve as ARD facilitators is perceived as an ineffective use of teacher time, and may cause a disconnection between diagnosticians and schools. 4. 4.A The system for deploying district-level special education staff to support schools is Systems unclear and insufficient to support attainment of program goals and expectations. of Support to Schools 4.B The RtI process and SST (student support team) system are complex and lack connection; teachers and principals perceive these efforts as compliance-driven rather than as academic support systems for students. 4.C The lack of bilingual, bi-cultural special education department leadership and staff (directors, diagnosticians, speech pathologists, psychologists) presents a barrier to effectively supporting schools, parents, and special education students. 4.D Disconnected, inefficient, and outdated data systems result in duplicative efforts, a focus on compliance over instruction. 5. 5.A Insufficient and/or ineffective communication and engagement efforts between central Communication office departments may be resulting in mixed messages and competing or duplicative and efforts at schools. Engagement 5.B School leaders have insufficient engagement in the selection and evaluation of special education department staff that are assigned to support their schools. 5.C Parents, teachers, and principals are not meaningfully engaged in special education program decision-making and/or feedback for program improvement.
Once these initial findings were identified, the reviewer employed the research protocol of “member checking” to gain a deeper understanding of the draft findings and to determine if the review process had resulted in findings that seemed logical, appropriate, and accurate through the lens of district and school leadership expertise and experience. Member checking is a method for crosschecking and confirming research findings to mitigate potential misunderstanding on the part of the researcher and to provide an opportunity to clarify and strengthen initial findings. Member-checking conversations were conducted with district and school leaders prior to finalization of the recommendations and report.
VIII. Special Education Program Review Recommendations
The Special Education program review sought to answer the following questions: 1. What is the current state of special education programming in the district? What conclusions can be drawn from historical, comparison, and benchmark data? 2. What is the perception of the efficacy of the district’s special education program? What is working well? What isn’t working so well? 3. What guidance or supports from central administration would assist principals and teachers in improving special education services, programs, and outcomes for students?
The sixteen recommendations delineated in Table 19 are reflective of the feedback and analysis related to the research questions and aligned to the findings from the research process (noted in Table 18).
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 39 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Table 19. Special Education Review Recommendations Recommendations for Consideration Impact Quadrant*: 1 - Potential for low resistance/low cost 2 - Potential for low resistance/high cost 3 - Potential for high resistance/low cost 4 - Potential for high resistance/high cost Findings Recommendations Impact 1. 1.1 Collaborate with curriculum and instruction leaders in the 1 Clarity in Direction and development/ refinement of the Managed Performance Programming Empowerment educational theory of action and core academic plan. 1.2 Engage stakeholders (parents, teachers, school leaders, and 1 other teaching and learning departments) in the development of a clear direction, theory of action, and goals for special education in accord with the district’s education plan and theory of action. 1.3 Work with teacher leaders to develop clear frameworks for all 1 special education program models, providing a “picture” of the expected features and characteristics of each program. Support shared understanding of program models through required professional learning, broad communication, and in-school support. 2. 2.1 Simplify and improve pre-referral and initial assessment 1 Equitable Access to a processes (RtI, SST, FIE) and measure success by reduction in Full testing time, fewer DNQ determinations, and more equitable Continuum of Services identification and placement of English Learners, Hispanic students, African American students, and early learners (PK-2nd grade). 2.2 Institute a committee review protocol for all DNQ determinations 2 and measure success through reduction in DNQ rates and more equitable placements. 2.2 Review all English learner program placements to ensure special 2 education services are provided in all bilingual/ESL settings (ex: bilingual/dual language inclusion classes at elementary school, bilingual sheltered inclusion classes at secondary schools). 2.4 Move forward with Destination Access (“de-clustering” of units) 3 by engaging principals, teachers, and other leaders in refinement and implementation of the plan to ensure a full continuum of service at all schools for special ed. students. 2.5 Ensure equitable allocation of any remaining centralized units 2 (cluster programs) after Destination Access decisions are made, such as ADL, PPCD, Deaf Education and Vision Impairment. 3. 3.1 Remove ARD facilitation/case management duties from teachers 2 Staffing and Organizational and assign this role to campus-based diagnosticians. Roles 3.2 Redesign staffing assignments of diagnosticians; move them to 2 full-time single school support (to the greatest extent possible), and engage principals in selection/assignment and evaluations of diagnosticians. Consider using this model to apply to other centrally allocated staff. 3.3 Consider hiring a bilingual special education expert in a 2 leadership role and engage bilingual special education parents in the development of the profile and responsibilities for this leader.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 40 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Recommendations for Consideration (continued) 4. 4.1 Work with principals and school leadership to develop a system 1 Systems of Support of supports for schools, developing “teams of support” for to Schools schools/clusters of schools that are stable over time, scheduled for predictable in-school support, and ensure principal engagement in selection/placement and feedback for evaluation of support team staff. 4.2 Develop, implement, and support a system of high-quality, 4 required professional learning for all teachers and school leaders that is geared to supporting student success in the various programs and aligned to the expectations of the core academic program. 4.3 Support teachers in successful enactment of expected roles 2 through access to the instructional resources, equipment, and supplies needed. 5. 5.1 Develop a communication and response system for information 1 Communication and and feedback to and from schools based on meaningful customer Engagement service and short response time expectations. 5.2 Create stakeholder engagement groups for leadership and 1 guidance of program direction and decisions, and include parents, teachers, principals and core academic program leaders in meaningful ways.
*The impact quadrant consideration indicates potential impact barriers such as cost and resistance. Resistance in this context does not imply human resistance only; it also could be systemic or organizational challenges that present barriers to implementation. The impact quadrant is provided as a starting point for this discussion in consideration of information gleaned during the review process. Dallas leadership will have to determine the impact of these recommendations and make adjustments and decisions accordingly.
These recommendations should be viewed and undertaken as an integrated, “whole cloth” effort rather than a piecemeal, fragmented set of actions steps. They are not listed or ranked in any priority order. The nature of the interrelationships between and among the strands of the teaching and learning systems in general education and special education necessitate a systemic, integrated implementation plan.
IX. Report Summary When viewed as a “whole cloth” set of findings and recommendations it became evident that three broad ideas could become key drivers for improving the work of The Dallas ISD special education programs program. These include: 1. Alignment to a high-quality core academic program 2. Equitable access to core academic program and special education programs and services 3. Capacity building and systems of support for shared accountability Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 41 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
It is the reviewer’s opinion—informed through research on higher performing districts and input from district teachers, parents, and principals—that implementation of these recommendations will move the district toward the goal of improved special education programs and services in Dallas ISD.
This report and supporting documents are respectfully submitted to Dr. Ivan Duran, Deputy Superintendent, for consideration by the Dallas ISD.
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 42 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Appendices
A. Data and Documents List
B. Interviews and Focus Groups
C. Schedule and List of School Site Visits
D. Research References
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 43 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Appendix A Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Data and Documents List
Dallas ISD staff provided documents and data to inform the special education programs review process. Additional documents were viewed or retrieved from the Texas Education Agency website, U. S. Department of Education website, and other external sources/providers. List of Documents Category Types/Names of Documents Special DISD Education Plan 2016-17 Education Special Education Handbook and Guidelines and General DISD Curriculum and Instruction Plans and Resources 2016-17 Education RtI Handbook and Guidelines Program Destination Access: Staff Deployment Plan Information Specialized Program Review: Special Education Department, June 2014 Access Learning Center: Personalized Support to Promote Student Success Redirection Services Plan, October 2016 Wraparound Intervention Network Plan, October 2016 Various Documents from the Online Curriculum System (TRS) Various Documents from the Online RtI System (SchoolNet) Special DISD Special Education Participation (SY 2013-14 to SY 2016-17) Education Special Education Ethnicity (SY 2013-14 to SY 2016-17) Student Special Education Representation (SY 2004-05 to SY 2015-16) Participation Special Education Enrollment by Program (SY 2015-16) and Special Education State to State Enrollment Comparisons (SY 2013-2014) Performance Special Education Urban Participation Enrollment Comparisons (2013-16) Data Special Education Urban Performance Comparisons (2013-16) DISD Special Education STAAR Student Performance Results (SY 2015-16) DISD Special Education STAAR Results by Ethnicity (SY 2015-16) DISD Special Education End of Course Results (SY 2015-16) DISD Special Education State STAAR Results (SY 2015-16) DISD Special Education Graduation Rates- (SY 2014-15 to SY 2015-16) Special Dallas ISD Targeted Improvement Plan (SY 2015-16) Education Dallas ISD 2014 PBMAS Report Accountabilit Dallas ISD 2015 PBMAS Report y Data Dallas ISD 2016 TAPR Report Program Evaluation reports – Dept. of Assessment and Evaluation (2013-2016) Evaluations Mid-Year Special Education Evaluation Report—DISD Department of and Audits Assessment and Evaluation (SY 2016-17) Review of Individual Evaluation Department (SY 2014--2015) External reports and program proposals –Dr. Ruth Turner– (2013-2016) National Center for Educational Accountability Core Practices Audit (2011) Special Education PBMAS— Targeted Improvement Plan Fall 2015 Other District Data Packet for Planning (SY 2015-2016) Related Special Education Staffing Allocations (SY 2016-2017) Documents Special Education Staffing Comparisons – 3 Urban District (2015) Special Education Budget Comparisons – 3 Urban District (2015) Board State Accountability Reports to the Board of Trustees – DISD Assessment Reports and Evaluation Department (SY 2014-15 to SY 2015-16) Annual Report to the Board of Trustees (SY 2015-2016) Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 44 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Appendix B Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Interviews and Focus Groups
Principal, teachers, parents, and various central administration department leaders participated in interviews and focus group discussions to provide feedback to the special education program review. Interviewees and focus group attendees are listed by category in the tables below.
Interviews
Interviewee Title/Role Ivan Duran Deputy Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde Chief of School Leadership Vincent Reyes Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning Cecilia Oakeley Assistant Superintendent of Evaluation and Assessment Derek Little Assistant Superintendent of Early Learning Leslie Williams Assistant Superintendent of ISN Schools Tanya Browne Executive Director of Special Education Danielle Hernandez Executive Director of Teaching and Learning Angie Gaylor Executive Director of Professional Development Ed Sorla Executive Director of Finance and Accounting Services Keitha Shelby Director of Instructional Support Services Stacy Venson Director of Special Education Doug Brooks Director of District-wide Services Karen Jones Director of Individual Evaluations Regina Rice Director of African American Success Initiative Amanda Clymer Director of Bilingual/ESL Cloris Rangel Director of Dual Language Robert Costello Manager of Program Evaluation 10 Principals Site Visit Schools Ruth Turner External Consultant-Special Education * There were instances wherein interviewees were accompanied by staff members. In these instances, only the scheduled interviewee is listed.
Focus Groups
Groups* Parent Center Bilingual Special Education Parents (2 sessions) Special Education Network Parents Special Education Assessment and Evaluation Special Education Department (2 sessions) Curriculum Department Staff Teachers – Special Ed. and General Ed. Inclusion (2 sessions) Principals School Leadership Executive Directors Teacher Focus Groups at 10 School Site Visits
*For the purpose of confidentiality, attendees were not required to sign in or otherwise confirm attendance. Across the focus groups, the reviewer estimates total participants at approximately 200. Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 45 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Appendix C Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Schedule and List of School Site Visits
Schools Date
1. Carr Elementary January 24 2. Donald Elementary January 27 3. Hotchkiss Elementary January 23 4. McNair Elementary January 23 5. Titche Elementary January 24 6. Dade Middle School January 26 7. Garcia Middle School Jan. 25 & Feb. 6 8. Piedmont Middle School January 25 9. Conrad High School January 26 10. Woodrow Wilson High School January 27
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 46 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review Appendix D Dallas ISD Special Education Review
Research References (Cited and/or Consulted)
Ahram, R., Adeyemi, S., Fergus, E., Noguera, P. (2014). Framing Urban School Challenges: The Problems to Examine When Implementing Response to Intervention. RTI Action Network, A Program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/ urban-school- challenges?tmpl=component&print=1.
Cortiella, C., Horowitz, S. (2014). The State of Learning Disabilities. The National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Kena, G. et.al (2015). The Condition of Education 2015. Institute of Educational Sciences: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Hendrie, C., Olson, L., Reeves, M.S., Eds. (2004). Quality Counts. Count Me In: Special Education in an Era of Standards. Education Week and The Pew Charitable Trust.
McGrew, K.S. and Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for Students with Cognitive Disabilities: Is the Cup Half Empty or Half Full? Can the Cup Flow Over? Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Morales-James, C., Lopez, L., Rodney, W., and Fergus, E. (2014). Cultural Adaptations When Implementing RtI in Urban Settings. RTI Action Network, A Program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/cultural-adaptations-when-implementing-rti-in- urban-settings.
National Center for Educational Achievement (2011). The 20 Non-Negotiable Characteristics of Higher-Performing Systems. ACT, Inc.
National Center on Intensive Special education. (2014). Designing and Delivering Interventions for Students with Severe and Persistent Academic Needs, DBI Training Series Module 7. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.intensivespecial education.org.
Ripp, A., Patrick, J-P., and Fergus, E. (2014). Promising Examples of RtI Practices in Urban Schools. RtI Action Network: A Program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. Washington, DC.
Salisbury, C., Strieker, T, Roach, V., and McGregor, G. (2001). Pathways to Inclusive Practices: Systems Oriented, Policy-Linked, and Research-Based Strategies that Work. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling.
Zeeble, Bill. National Public Radio. (2016) Transcript, Texas May Be Denying Tens of Thousands of Children Special Education. Aired October 26. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/21/496943376/texas-may-be-denying-tens-of- thousands-of-children-special-education
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 47 2017 Dallas ISD Special Education Program Review
Collier Educational Consulting Denise Collier, Ed. D. February 2017
Collier Educational Consulting, LLC 48 2017