District-Wide Special Education Program Evaluationo Learning Center, Grade 2 o Learning Center,...

District-Wide Special Education Program Evaluation

Department of Special Services

Lynnfield Public Schools

Lynnfield, Massachusetts

Conducted:

October / November 2017

Submitted by:

Northshore Education Consortium

112 Sohier Road

Beverly, Massachusetts

NEC: Lynnfield District-Wide Program Evaluation

2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Purpose

B. Evaluators

II. Methodology

III. Commendations

IV. Factors Affecting Programming and Services

V. Notable Observations

VI. Recommendations

VII. Summary


3

I. Introduction

The Director of Special Services for the Lynnfield Public Schools requested that the

Northshore Education Consortium (NEC) provide consultants to conduct a district-wide

evaluation of the special education programs and services for preschool through grade 12.

The administration requested this evaluation in order to secure recommendations that will

address the following: current status of special education programming and services,

staffing pattern, utilization of professional staff, and instructional assistants,

effectiveness of current special education program models and instructional support

services, strategies of inclusion, inclusionary practices of instruction (push-in), co-

teaching classes, specialized instructional strategies, substantially separate programming,

and professional development needs of general and special education personnel at the

preschool through grade 12 levels. Special education administrative practices and

procedures, the pre-referral process, and tiered instructional support approaches are also

to be reviewed.

A. Purpose

The purpose of an independent evaluation of a special education program and services is

to provide a school district with an objective report that identifies areas of strengths,

needs, and recommendations. An independent evaluation allows for the district to be

examined from the perspective that looks at what is working well in the district, but also

identifies areas that need to be strengthened.

The evaluation process is designed, through a multi-step approach, to assist the school

district’s leadership team and the school-based special education personnel in having a

guided and focused discussion that will enable effective short and long-range planning to

occur while recognizing and addressing issues such as:

o Identifying trends and patterns in student referrals to special education

o Identifying the main characteristics in the students who are referred

o Identifying similar profile characteristics in the non-referred and referred students

o Determining the effectiveness and utilization of current special education

personnel and their roles and responsibilities with respect to serving students in

Individualized Education Programs

o Identifying trends in the program placement of students

o Determining the effectiveness of current program and service interventions

o Identifying staffing and resource needs that reflect student needs


4

o Creating a long-range plan that addresses the agreed-upon needs of the various

student disability populations.

o Establishing a comprehensive approach to program and service development that

is linked to the budget planning process

It is important to recognize that, for the information contained in this report to be

beneficial to the school district and special education services, the stakeholders must

come together to discuss the findings and the recommendations. This evaluation process

brings forth information that will enable the district administration and school-based

special and general education personnel to develop an action plan(s) that will lead to

more effective approaches for serving the students with disabilities.

B. Evaluators

Ms. Sally Smith, M. Ed., is a Special Education and Early Childhood Consultant for the

Northshore Education Consortium. Prior to her present professional position, Ms. Smith

has thirty-nine years of educational experience that includes Early Childhood Coordinator

and Northeast Regional Associate Manager of Walker Partnerships, Director of

Professional Development for the Education Collaborative of Greater Boston, four years

as Director of Student Services for the Belmont Public Schools following twelve years of

involvement with the Early Childhood Program for the Belmont Public Schools as a

preschool special education teacher, an inclusion specialist, and Early Childhood

Coordinator. Ms. Smith has also been an elementary and middle school consulting

teacher for the Lynnfield Public Schools and a special education teacher at the SEEM

Collaborative. Ms. Smith has conducted numerous professional development trainings

and directed over thirty-six program evaluations of special education programs and

services at all grade levels for public school districts. Additionally, Ms. Smith has

instructed and supervised graduate students from numerous Boston area colleges and

universities as well as mentored/coached teachers and coordinators. Ms. Smith also has

extensive experience with developing effective programming for students on the Autism

Spectrum.

James B. Earley, Ed. D., is a Special Education Consultant for the Northshore Education

Consortium. Dr. Earley has forty-seven years of public education experience as a

teacher, teaching assistant principal, Massachusetts Department of Education Supervisor,

and Acting Regional Special Education Director. For thirty years Dr. Earley served in

the positions of Administrator of Special Education for the Watertown Public Schools

and Superintendent of Schools for the Watertown Public Schools. Prior to assuming his

position as Special Education Consultant, he was Managing Director of Walker

Partnerships for twelve years. Dr. Earley has been a Senior Lecturer at Lesley University

and Wheelock College, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Massachusetts/Boston,

and a Student Teacher Supervisor for Salem State University. Dr. Earley has consulted

for numerous educational organizations, participated in a variety of special education task

forces and committees, and was a member of the Executive Board of the Massachusetts

Administrators of Special Education for 24 years. He has conducted over one hundred

twenty-five independent program evaluations and numerous professional development


5

trainings for school districts within Massachusetts and several other states. Dr. Earley

has been recognized for his contributions to special education and received several

awards, culminating with being named the recipient of the National Outstanding Special

Education Administrator of 2003 by The Council of Administrators of Special Education.


6

II. Methodology

This program evaluation was conducted based on a four-step approach.

1. Document Review

The NEC consultants reviewed various documentation consisting of the

following: program description(s), program staff roles/responsibilities, census

data, procedural guidelines and practices, instructional, therapeutic, and

behavioral intervention strategies/protocols, budget data, student progress data

collection and reporting systems, District Curriculum Accommodation Plan,

professional development offerings, 24 sample IEPs, and other related documents

for special education. Two hours was required for this activity by each

consultant.

2. Observations of Designated Classes

The NEC consultants spent a total of 2.5 days observing 37 instructional settings

for preschool, elementary, middle, and high school general education, special

education programs and services. These observations included the following

instructional settings:

Huckleberry Hill Elementary School Observations:

o Kindergarten Inclusion Classes, 2

o First Grade Small Group, Pull-Out

o Learning Center, Grade 2


o Differentiated Learning Program Classes, 2

Summer Street School Observations:

o Preschool Classes, 2


o Grade 3 Co-Teaching Class

o Grade 3 Inclusion Class

o Grade 3 Language-based Program

o Kindergarten Inclusion Class

o Preschool Occupational Therapy Group

o Social Skills Group, School Psychologist

Lynnfield Middle School Observations:

o Differentiated Learning Program, Grades 5-8

o Grades 6, 7, 8 Language-Based Programs

o Grade 6 Language-Based Strategies

o Grade 6 Co-Taught Class

o Grade 7 Co-Taught Class

o Grades 5 and 6 Academic Support

o Grade 8 Inclusion


7

o Grades 5-8 Student Support Program

Lynnfield High School Observations:

o Co-Taught English Class, Grade 9 (Language-based)

o Social/Emotional Support Class

o Differentiated Learning Program I

o Differentiated Learning Program II

o Center for Independent Learning

o Co-Taught ELA Class, Grade 10

o High School Student Support Team

o Bridge Program

3. Interviews

One-on-one interviews and focus group interviews and discussions occurred over

two days. Individual interviews were 30 minutes in length while the focus groups

were 45 minutes in length. Forty-one staff members and two parents participated

in the interview process. The positions that were interviewed are listed under the

following interview formats.

One-on-One Interviews:

o Superintendent

o Director of Special Services

o Special Education Coordinators, 3

o Principal, 1

o School Psychologists, 3

o Kindergarten Teachers,1

o First Grade Teachers,1

o Special Education Teachers, 2

o Learning Center Teachers, 5

o BCBA Program Director

o Speech and Language Pathologist, 1

o Language-based Teachers, 4

o Merrimack Fellow, 1

Focus Groups Interviews:

o Middle School Team Chair, Principal, and Assistant Principal

o High School Assistant Principal and Bridge Program Teacher/Team

Chairperson

o High School CIL Teachers, 3

o Grade K Co-teachers, 2

o Grade 3 Co-teachers, 2

o Grade 4 Co-teachers, 2

o Preschool Teachers, 2


8

Parent Interviews:

Ten parents were contacted to participate, representing the elementary school

(grades K, 1, 4), the middle school (grades 6, 7, 8), and the high school

(grades 9, 10, Of the ten parents contacted, two parents were individually

interviewed, and four parents returned answers to the parent questions via

email.

Questions for School Personnel:

o What trends do you see in the overall school population?

o Your tenure in the district?

o What do you see working well for students with special needs?

o What is your role and what are your responsibilities in the school where

you are assigned?

o Do your colleagues have a full understanding of your role?

o Do you feel that there is a clear and definitive understanding of the

population that you serve?

o Are there clear procedures and practice policies for the work that you

do?

o What are your main concerns regarding special education?

o What strengths do you see in the various special education programming

and services?

o What trends are you experiencing in your program?

o What type of data collection system is utilized?

o Is RtI/tiered instruction a formalized process within your school?

o Do you find social skill curriculum an effective tool?

o What do you see as a major influence(s) on referrals to special

education?

o What do you currently see occurring for students who are struggling with

their academics and social/emotional/behavioral issues?


9

o Are you asked to consult to the pre-referral team? Are you on the pre-

referral team?

o Who do you go to when you have a question/concern about a student

who is on an IEP?

o What types of additions/changes do you think need to occur to enable

special needs students to be more successful?

o How are professional development needs provided for you and your

colleagues? What is the focus and what are the topics?

o Do you find the co-teaching model of instruction a benefit to special

need students?

o Is there a structured re-entry program for students who have had

extended absences from school or who have been hospitalized?

o What topics of professional development need to be addressed?

o Are special education practices and procedures clear to you?

o What practices need to be in place to enhance your program?

o How is student progress measured?

o What are some parents’ concerns?

o Do you have any other thoughts or ideas regarding the structure or

operation of special education services you think should be included in

this report?

These questions varied, somewhat, depending on the specific role of the

interviewed individual. Discussion expanded beyond these specific questions

based on the individual’s experience within their respective role, their experience

in the field of education, the length of time that they have been in their current

position, and any others factors that emerged from the interview process.

Questions for Parents:

o Who is your primary special education contact?

o Do you feel that you are kept informed regarding your child’s progress?


10

o Do you feel that the staff members working with your child have a good

working knowledge of your child’s needs?

o To the best of your knowledge, are regulatory requirements met?

o Do you feel that you receive answers to your questions from special

education personnel within a reasonable time period?

o Do you feel that school personnel are receptive to your suggestions?

o Do you feel that you are a part of the team at team meetings?

o Do the staff members working with your child indicate that they see

effective progress? Do you see progress?

o If you have experienced a transition with your child, how comprehensive

was the process?

o Do you feel that you have access to the personnel working with your

child?

o Are there any issues that you feel the department or school should be

aware of, in relation to you, as the parent of a child with special needs?

As with the school-based staff interviews, the questions expanded based on the

flow of the discussion, the individual’s experience with the district regarding their

child’s IEP, and the length of time that their child has been involved with special

education.

4. Exit Interview

An exit interview was conducted with Lynnfield’s Director of Special Services to

review the on-site evaluation process and the initial findings and

recommendations.


11

III. Commendations

This section of the report is for recognizing the efforts put forth by the district and the

administration in their plan to meet the needs of the special education students in grades

Pre-K through 12 in the Lynnfield Public Schools. Special education is a complex

mandate for public schools to meet. There are many competing interests that continue to

place significant pressure and financial burden on school districts within the

Commonwealth. Lynnfield Public Schools has recognized its responsibility to meet the

needs of its students with special needs.

Specific Commendations:

o The Superintendent of Schools and the Director of Special Services are

commended for commissioning this evaluation.

o The special education program staff responded enthusiastically to the evaluators’

visits to their programs, displaying openness and an accommodating style for the

process of the observations.

o It was observed that school-based staff members are clearly dedicated to the needs

of the students in the schools, and they expressed appreciation for their working

environment.

o Interviewees demonstrated an openness in their comments and a positive

willingness of participation in this evaluation. The comments they expressed

through the interview process contributed substantially to the development of this

report.

o District-wide data teams monitor student progress across the district at all levels.

This activity was identified in a 2010 District-wide Special Education Program

Evaluation along with several other commendations such as the extensive use of

technology by observed staff, extensive professional development offerings to all

staff, well-equipped motor rooms for sensory integration activities, and

reasonable caseloads of the special education instructional staff.

o Interviewees report a high visibility of the Director of Special Services within the

schools.

o The district is committed to inclusionary practices across all grade levels.


12

Table I. FY 2017 Percentage of Special Needs Students Included

Districts # of SPED

Students

Fully

Included

Partially

Included

Totally

Included

Sub-

Separate

Lynnfield 350 76.7% 17.1% 93.8% 3.1%

Medway 341 73.5% 13.9% 87.4% 2.2%

North

Reading

450 64.2% 18.9% 83.1% 11.0%

Norwell 312 89.9% 4.2% 94.0% 0.0%

Sutton 253 60.6% 28.6% 89.2% 6.5%

State

167,530 63.3% 15.7% 79% 13.9%

Source: FY 2017 Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (DESE) October 1st, 2016 Census Report

(FY 18 census data was not available at the time of report development. Students aged 3 to 5 were not included in the

percentages.)

Table I illustrates that for the FY 2017 October 1st census report, the district had the

second highest percentage of special needs students Fully Included compared to like

districts and the statewide average. The district had the second highest percentage of

students Fully and Partially Included compared to like districts and the statewide

average. For students enrolled in Sub-Separate programming, the district was

significantly lower than the statewide average and two like districts had a lower

percentage than Lynnfield.

In 2010, the district reported:

Table II. FY 2010 Percentage of Special Needs Students Included

District # of

Students

Fully

Included

Partially

Included

Totally

Included

Sub-

Separate

Lynnfield 295 73.6% 12.9% 86.5% 4.7%

State 58.0% 19.9% 77.9% 15.6% Source: DESE FY 2010 October 1st Census Report

Table II illustrates that in FY 2010, the district had 73.6% of the special needs population

Fully Included; whereas, in FY 2017, 76.7% were Fully Included. 12.9% were Partially

Included in FY 2010; whereas, 17.1% were Partially Included in FY 2017. Under Sub-

Separate programming in FY 2010, 4.7% were enrolled in this program option; whereas,

in FY 2017, 3.1% were enrolled in this option. This represents a decrease of 1.6%. The

total percentage of special needs students included for FY 2017 was 7.3% higher than FY

2010. This demonstrates the district’s efforts to move students into general education

settings (Least Restrictive Environment, LRE) for greater access to the curriculum.

o There has been extensive, written reporting by evaluation team members

regarding their assessment results on page one of the IEP, Key Evaluation Results

Summary.

o Accommodations listed in the IEP are set up by:

Presentation


13

Timing

Response

Setting

This format provides the reader with a clearer understanding of the data

and how it impacts on learning.

o The district is dedicating resources to support eight ELA tutors and four math

tutors for both elementary schools. These individuals provide 20 hours a week of

concentrated instruction to students identified as requiring additional support for a

period of six to eight weeks. This is a form of Tier II intervention.

o The district is accessing DESE kindergarten grant funds to provide assistance for

each kindergarten class.

o Caseloads for special education staff are very reasonable.

Table III. FY 2016 Students with Disabilities(SWD) Ratio to Special Education

Staff

Special

Education

Positions

Lynnfield Medway North

Reading

Norwell Sutton State

FY 15

SPED

Teacher

13.4:1 63.5:1 18:1 15:1 19.8:1 17.9:1

SPED Para 10.7:1 6.5:1 10:1 9.7:1 7.8:1 8.8:1

SPED

Related

Service

Provider

38:1 17:1 41:1 33:1 30:1 35:1

Source: DESE FY 2016 District Analysis Review Tool-(The state data was for FY 2016 was not available.)

Table III illustrates that the district has the lowest student-to-special education teacher

ratio than the like districts and the statewide average. Though the student ratio to a

special education paraprofessional is higher than the like districts and the statewide

average, the ratio for Lynnfield is very reasonable when compared to the like districts and

the state. For student-to-special education related services providers, Lynnfield’s ratio is

higher than three like districts and the state.

o Through contracted services, consultants were provided to the district to review

the inclusionary practices at the Summer Street Elementary School. The outcome

was that the staff made progress in this area, but more would be needed so that all

staff could establish shared practices and values regarding inclusion.

o Special education instructional personnel made use of technology during class

time. Many staff engaged the technology with active student participation.


14

o The observations provided the evaluators with an opportunity to hear consistent,

positive reinforcement language being used throughout the schools from a variety

of instructional personnel.

o The district has a stated special education plan for addressing:

Educators’ Growth

Curriculum and Instruction

Assessment and Accountability

Social and Emotional Well-being

o The district uses the Instructional Rounds model at the preschool, elementary, and

middle school levels to assist teachers with their instruction of students with

special needs who require various and challenging specialized instruction. This

model provides feedback to the teachers. Staff reported that they value the process

and it helps validate their teaching practices and/or provides ideas to enhance their

current practices. This model is based on The Art and Science of Teaching,

(Marzano, 2007).

o The district has put considerable effort into improving the preschool program.

The supervision and oversight of staff and programs, and the continuum of classes

so that students with more complex needs can be educated in their community is

commendable. The move from the Central Office to the Summer Street

Elementary School was a contributing factor that made this possible.

o The district is providing an array of professional development offerings to school-

based professional staff and paraprofessionals. This was documented through the

document review and interview process of this evaluation.

o The Bridge Program, a general education support program, is being used by the

district in part as a 45-day diagnostic program, a re-entry program to the high

school for students who have been hospitalized, and for students who require

short-term or immediate support.

o The district provides a continuum of special education programming that supports

students with more intensive needs. This programming includes: Differentiated

Learning Program (for students with complex multiple disabilities), Language-

Based Program, Language-Based Strategies Program, and Student Support

Program (for students with social/emotional/behavioral health needs).

o The district added a .6 FTE school psychologist position for the Summer Street

School to assist with conducting re-evaluations and serving the needs of those

students presenting with social/behavioral concerns.

o The elementary schools have implemented Second Step Social Skills Curriculum,

Social Thinking Skill Development Curriculum, and Zones of Regulation


15

strategies. The Collaborative Problem Solving of strategies operates at the high

school.

o The district has developed and put in place a detailed District Curriculum

Accommodation Plan (DCAP) which is divided into sections for Academic,

Social/Emotional, and Instructional Practices for preschool, elementary, middle,

and high school levels.

o The district uses the instructional support team pre-referral intervention as a Tier1

intervention for typical students who are struggling with academic learning and

social/emotional issues. This process examines strategies of intervention that may

not have been utilized by instructional personnel.

o The district has made effort to identify and introduce more Tier 1 and Tier II

interventions in general education classrooms across all schools.

o The incorporation of mindfulness training at all grade levels has proven to be

successful with students demonstrating social/emotional/behavioral health needs.

o The district provides substitute teachers at the elementary level so that the

assessment teams can meet at each grade level, quarterly.

o Special education high school teachers are assigned to their students for the four

years should they begin supporting these students with IEPs as freshmen.

o The district is responsive to the requests of special education staff for

unanticipated instructional and assessment materials.

o The district has been responsive in supporting the attendance of staff members in

out-of-district professional development workshops.

o Although the number of parent interviews and email responses was small, the

parents that responded were extremely positive about their experiences with

Lynnfield’s Director of Special Services and the special education school-based

staff. Parents reported the following:

Thoughtful feeling of inclusion in team meetings

Excellent home/school communication

Assurance that regulatory requirements are followed

Thoughtful transitions from preschool to elementary, elementary to

middle, and from and an out-of-district placement into the Lynnfield

Public Schools.

o Special education staff report that the special education team leaders throughout

the district are responsive, professional, and meet weekly with special education

staff in their respective schools.


16

o The district employs Merrimack Fellows as assistants (elementary and middle

schools) in many of their special education programs. This practice is excellent as

the Fellows are skilled, certified teachers working on their master’s degree.

o Special needs students with ELA and math needs in grade 8 have co-taught

English and math classes by a special educator and a content teacher. They are

supported in science and social studies with a Merrimack Fellow. Students receive

additional support during C block (foreign language and exploratory) and F block

(team time).

o Grade 6 students at the middle school who have been in the Language-Based

Learning Program are considered for more inclusion in grade 7 by having a trial

period in the spring of their grade 6 year. (See the Notable Observations section

regarding documentation.)

o The Lynnfield Public Schools has a comprehensive process for transitioning

special needs students from preschool to elementary, elementary to middle, and

middle to high school. The process includes multiple observations and meetings.

(See the Notable Observations section regarding documentation.)

o In the spring, all grade 4 teachers go to the middle school for a half-day to meet

with grade 5 teachers and discuss upcoming special needs students. Grade 5

special education staff members attend this meeting.

o The Differentiated Learning Program (DLP) provides music therapy for all grade

levels, a high student-teacher ratio with a head teacher, 1:1 assistants that rotate

among the students, opportunities for inclusion, extensive data collection, Applied

Behavioral Analysis (ABA), and oversight by the district’s lead BCBA.

o The district provides all assistants with CPI (Crisis Prevention Intervention)

training. This training provides staff with de-escalation techniques and methods to

manage disruptive behaviors.

o At all levels, Student Support teachers use the daily support period for program

students to spend time in the Student Support Room to organize materials, plan

and start long-term projects, and provide a check-in on how the day is going.

This time provides an opportunity to build positive connections between the

students and the staff.

o The special education teachers and related services providers, at all levels, have a

designated hour each week to convene for common special education planning.

o Students in the Summer Street School (Grades 2/3 Language-Based Program) are

assigned to one general education class with a Merrimack Fellow in grade 3; in

grade 2, an assistant follows the students assigned to the program throughout the


17

day. Assigning them to one regular education class allows more opportunities for

the staff of this program to consult.

o For the school year 2016-2017, the district created a co-taught inclusion

kindergarten class for students with moderate needs. This program, with a ratio of

7:22, is highly staffed with a kindergarten teacher, a special education teacher, a

Merrimac Fellow, and a regular education assistant.

o During the CLE (Collaborative Learning Experience) time last year, the SLPs

developed a developmental checklist for speech and language skills at the Pre-K

level. This is a useful document which could be shared with private providers and

parents.

o The grade 4 co-taught model, staffed by a grade teacher, a special education

teacher, and a Merrimac Fellow, is excellent. The teachers meet daily for

planning and discussion. From the observation, it was clear that staff are aware of

the various models for effective co-teaching. This team has worked together for

two years. It was difficult to tell who the special education teacher was and who

was the grade level teacher.

o The grade 3 co-taught model is in two, grade 3 classrooms. There are always two

adults in each classroom during the school day, and with specials for both

classrooms occurring at the same time, this time is used for common planning and

discussion. These teachers work well together and understand co-teaching.

o The preschool has created an excellent program for students with more complex

needs. This model includes the following: a 45-minute substantially separate

setting for previewing and discrete trial work from 8:00-8:45; a 3-hour block of

inclusion from 8:45-11:45; and a 95-minute period of reviewing from 11:45-1:20.

This program is co-taught by an SLP who is also licensed as a severe special

needs teacher and a certified special education teacher for Pre-K through grade 8.

This co-taught model is excellent since the students in the program have

significant communication needs. Strong data collection was observed occurring

in this program.

o The speech/language therapist and teacher of the Extended Day Program at the

preschool have a dedicated 40-minute period to plan together once a week. They

also meet weekly for 30 minutes with the special education team leader and

BCBA.

o Many math and ELA co-taught classes with the content teacher and the special

educator were observed at the middle and high schools. The administration

would like to expand this model at all levels. (See the Notable Observations

section.)


18

VI. Factors Affecting the Implementation of Special Education Programs and Services

This section of the report will address factors as they apply to the Lynnfield Public

Schools. It is the intent of the authors of this report to provide the district administrators

with current data that will assist in the planning and implementation of program and

service enhancements that build on existing programs and services.

There are numerous factors that impact on a district’s ability to deliver instructional and

related services to students with special needs. Two major factors are student census and

the needs of the students. These two factors drive program development and service

initiatives.

Census

Special education census for a district does impact programming and services. As the

census increases, additional resources may be required to address this increase. The

critical mass is an undetermined factor since the census is not the only factor that impacts

the implementation of programming and services for the special needs population.

Currently, Lynnfield’s special education census is higher than the statewide average for

FY 2018.

Table IV. Comparison of % of Special Needs Students

Fiscal Year Lynnfield State

FY 10 12.4% 17.0%

FY 17 17.5% 17.4%

FY 18 18.6% 17.4% Source: DESE October 1st Census Reports & District FY 2018 October 1st Census Report

Table IV illustrates the rise in the percentage of students identified as eligible for special

education services. The statewide increase is modest; however, the district’s increase

from FY 2010 through October 2017 is significant for a district of this size and

demographic composition.

Though this is not an indicator that the district is over-identifying students, the district

must analyze why it has a higher percentage of students in special education. This

analysis becomes a district issue. Addressing the numbers is important, but the cause of

the higher rate is more essential to the conversation for understanding why the

percentages are higher.


19

Table V. FY 2017 Comparison of % of Special Needs Students

to Like Districts

District % of SPED Students

Lynnfield 17.5%

Medway 14.5%

North Reading 17.9%

Norwell 14.1%

Sutton 17.3%

State 17.4% Source: DESE FY 2017 October 1st Census Report

Table V illustrates the wide variance among the like districts with respect to the

percentage of students eligible for special education for FY 2017. (FY 2018 data was not

available at the time of this report.)

In Table IV, the 1.1% increase from FY 2017 to FY 2018 is not a dramatic increase. At

some point, the district should review the data to determine the cause for this increase.

The district demonstrated a 5.1% increase in the percentage of students eligible for

special education from FY 2010 to FY 2018. The cause for this type of increase over the

eight-year period may be attributed to demographic changes to the community, more

effective student evaluation processes, and the use of an array of assessment tools.

School districts experience growth in their special education population for a host of

reasons that are not consistent with one another but are more unique to a district.

Over-identification of Students Requiring Special Education and Related Services

Massachusetts has the second highest rate of special education identification in the

United States. Currently, the state average is 17.4%. Rhode Island has the highest rate at

19%. In a study requested by the Massachusetts Commissioner of Elementary and

Secondary Education (DESE, 2013) conducted by Thomas Hehir and Associates, there

were several key findings that related to the over-identification of students eligible for

special education.

Nearly two out of three Massachusetts students with a disability are identified as

belonging in one of three categories: Specific Learning Disability, Communication, or

other Health impairments, and due to the potentially subjective nature of their diagnosis,

rates of identification for these categories may be more sensitive to policy decisions than

rates for the more strictly defined categories.

Rates of special education vary substantially across Massachusetts districts, ranging

from a low of approximately 9% to a high of 29% of a district’s students identified as

eligible for special education and related services. Local school districts are given

substantial flexibility in their interpretation of these specific categories.

Needs

The needs of the individual students are a major influence on programming. There is a

varying and diverse group of disability categories that make up the census of students in


20

the preschool through grade 12 and the 18 to 22 age population participating in special

education programming. Many of the students in these programs have more than one

disability. There are students with two or more disabilities that impact significantly on

their ability to learn and make effective progress. Program’s focus of learning shifts from

student-to-student and from year-to-year. The staff is confronted with having to

differentiate the instruction in many forms, on a daily basis. Accommodations and

modifications to the various curriculums need to occur on an ongoing basis from small

group instruction, to whole class instruction, to one-on-one instruction. The staff

demonstrated flexibility both in their ability to meet the various instructional, emotional,

and social needs of the students in all classes, but equally important was their effort to

continuously refine the curriculum for content instruction.

The needs of the students, based on assessment data, are driving the instruction. The use

of diversified and supplemental materials is essential to meeting the diverse needs of the

students, given their multiple, and individual needs. The current group of students

participating in the special education programming at the various levels demonstrates not

only varied needs, but the intensity of their needs is significant and requires ongoing

support from a variety of support personnel.

The table below illustrates the changes in the percentage of students by disability

category from FY 2010 and FY 2107.

Table VI. District SPED % by Disability Category Compared to the State % for FY

2010 & FY 2017

Disability

Category

Statewide

Average

FY 10

Lynnfield

FY 10

Lynnfield

FY 17

Statewide

Average

FY 17

Autism 6.5% 9.2% 11.3% 11.9%

Communication 17.6% 14.8% 19.5% 15.4%

Developmental

Disabilities

10.5% 4.7% 3.1% 11.1%

Emotional 8.4% 4.0% 4.6% 9.3%

Health 7.7% 5.7% 11.3% 13.0%

Intellectual 6.5% 3.4% 1.0% 4.9%

Multiple

Disabilities

2.8% 0.7% 1.0% 2.0%

Neurological 4.3% 5.1% 4.9% 5.6%

Physical 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%

Deaf/Blind 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Hearing

Impairment

0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7%

Vision

Impairment

0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%

Specific

Learning

Disabilities

33.5% 46.7% 41.8% 24.7%

Source: DESE October 1st Census Report for FY 2010 & FY 2017


21

Table VI illustrates the percentage of students in the various disability categories

compared to the statewide average. The comparisons by disability categories illustrate

where the increase in the overall percentage of special needs students arise from.

In FY 2010, the district had a higher percentage of students identified in the

Autism category than the statewide average. In FY 2017, the district was 0.6%

lower than the statewide average.

In FY 2010, the district had a lower percentage of students identified with a

Communications disability than the statewide average; whereas, for FY 2017, the

district had a 4.1 higher percentage than the statewide average.

The district had a lower percentage of students in the Developmental Disabilities

category for both years than the statewide average.

The district had a lower percentage of students in the Emotional disability for

both years than the statewide average.

The district had a lower percentage of students in the Health disability category

for both years than the statewide average.

The district had a lower percentage of students in the Multiple Disabilities

category for both years than the statewide average.

In FY 2010, the district had a 0.8 higher percentage of students identified with a

Neurological disability than the statewide average; whereas, in FY 2017, the

district had a 0.7 lower percentage than the statewide average.

The district, for both years, had a lower percentage of students in the Physical and

Deaf/Hard of Hearing disability categories than the statewide average.

In FY 2010, the district had a lower percentage of students identified in the

Hearing disability category than the statewide average; whereas, in FY 2017, the

district was slightly higher than the statewide average.

For both years, the district was basically the same as the statewide average for the

Vision disability category.

The district was 13.2% higher in FY 2010 than the statewide average, and 17.1%

higher in FY 2017 for students identified in the Specific Learning Disabilities

category.

The Specific Learning Disabilities category is the category that accounts for the

highest percentage of students in special education.


22

Table VII. FY 2017 Comparison to Like Districts by Disability Categories

Disability

Category

Lynnfield Medway North

Reading

Norwell Sutton State

SPED Census 390 341 450 312 256 167.530

Autism 11.3% 13.9% 10.0% 10.9% 8.7% 11.9%

Communication 19.5% 15.0% 15.6% 14.4% 6.3% 15.4%

Developmental

Delay

3.1% 10.8% 7.5% 3.2% 20.0% 11.1%

Emotional 4.6% 12.7% 7.5% 6.7% 1.6% 9.3%

Health 11.3% 9.3% 18.0% 13.8% 10.3% 13.0%

Intellectual 1.0% 8.1% 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% 4.9%

Multiple

Disabilities

1.0% 1.2% 2.0% 0.6% 3.2% 2.0%

Neurological 4.9% 7.1% 9.8% 3.2% 40.0% 5.6%

Physical 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.4% 0.6%

Deaf/Blind 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1%

Hard of

Hearing

1.0% 0.9% 1.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7%

Vision

Impairment

0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.4%

Specific

Learning

41.5% 25.0% 22.2% 31.4% 8.7% 24.7%

Source: DESE FY 2017 October 1st Census Report

Table VII illustrates the variance in the percentage of special needs students by disability

category among the like districts and the state. Some similarities of percentages are with

the disability categories of Autism, Communication (with Sutton as the exception),

Health, Intellectual, Physical, Deaf/Blind, Hard of Hearing, and Vision Impairment.

Lynnfield and Norwell have high percentages of students in the Specific Learning

Disabilities category, and both are also significantly higher than the statewide average.

The categories that districts have difficulty in interpreting with respect to which primary

disability category students should be assigned to are Communication, Health,

Neurological and Specific Learning Disabilities. This is due to the interpretation of the

disability definitions and what the evaluation team decides is the primary disability

category. What the evaluators have found from previous program evaluations is that the

definitions for these four disability categories have a tendency to overlap in the thinking

of team members.

The disability categories which drive high staff-to-student ratios are Autism,

Developmental Delay, Emotional, and Intellectual. These disability programs are

personnel intensive due to the needs of the students; therefore, they are expensive to

operate. Even though Lynnfield is below the statewide average in these four disability

categories, to operate programs for these disability categories requires a greater amount

of resources due to the students’ intensive needs. The needs of the students, based on

assessment data, drive the instruction. The use of diversified and supplemental materials

is essential to meeting the diverse needs of the students, given their multiple, individual


23

needs. The current group of students participating in the special education programming

at this designated level demonstrates not only varied needs, but the intensity of their

needs is significant and requires ongoing support from a variety of support personnel.

Utilization of Instructional Assistants

The utilization of instructional assistants has become a major factor in the

implementation of special education programming and services. In a Technical

Assistance Advisory SPED 2014-3 advisory issued on March 20, 2014, the Department

of Elementary and Secondary Education found that according to data from the DESE

Educator Personnel Information Management System (EPIMS), Massachusetts had, in

FY 2016, a total of 17,570 paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities in

the Commonwealth schools. (Data was only available up to FY 2016.)

As students with disabilities are increasingly placed in general education classroom

settings, the use of paraprofessionals (instructional assistants) has greatly expanded.

Recent national figures estimate that well over 500,000 paraprofessionals are employed

in public schools, and increases are anticipated in the coming years. The proliferation of

paraprofessionals in public schools often has outpaced conceptualization of team roles

and responsibilities as well as the training and supervisory needs of paraprofessionals.

Nowhere is this more evident than in schools where students with severe or multiple

disabilities are included in general education classrooms.

Paraprofessionals are playing an increasingly prominent role in the education of students

with disabilities. With pressure from parents who want to ensure that their children are

adequately supported, and general educators who want to make sure that they and their

students are adequately supported, the use of special education paraprofessionals has

become a primary mechanism to implement more inclusive school practices.

Common Issues to be Aware of for Special Education Paraprofessionals

Interference with Ownership and Responsibility by General Educators

o There are general education teachers who do not think it is their responsibility

to educate special needs students.

o The availability of paraprofessionals or instructional assistants can create an

opportunity to avoid assuming responsibility and ownership for special needs

students in the general education classroom.

o In many cases, the paraprofessionals do not receive the supervision needed to

make these decisions. They may find themselves having to “wing it.”

o Often, the paraprofessional may not be doing the same activity that the class

is.

o In many cases, the education of the most challenging students is given to

paraprofessionals who do not have the level of training and classroom

experience that is required to serve this population.

o If the role of the paraprofessional becomes ill-defined, the paraprofessionals

can be relegated to performing clerical duties.


24

Separation from Classmates

o Often, special needs students are removed from the main setting of the general

education class and receive their instruction either in another part of the

classroom or outside the classroom.

o With appropriate modifications and/or accommodations, many of these

students can participate in the same classroom activity.

Dependence on Adults

o The student becomes dependent on the paraprofessional for all behaviors in

the classroom, e.g., picking up the pencil, using materials, or following along

in the book.

o There is little evidence of fading prompts to decrease dependence on the

assistant and encourage the student to respond to other people.

o The paraprofessional stays involved with the student much longer than is

necessary.

o The long-term relationship of the paraprofessional with the student can

become counterproductive.

o The relationship of the paraprofessional can create boundary issues with

parents. The paraprofessional becomes “part of the family.”

Impact on Peer Interactions

o When the paraprofessionals are not in proximity to the special needs students,

peers are more likely to become involved with the students.

o Having a paraprofessional assigned to the special needs student can become

an additional stigma attached to the student, especially as the student gets

older.

o It is a more effective utilization of staff to assign paraprofessionals to the

classroom or the program. They can work with specific students on activities

that require 1:1 assistance.

Limitations on Receiving Competent Instruction

o Many classroom teachers expect capabilities from paraprofessionals that are

unrealistic.

o Inappropriate help can be given by the paraprofessional such as doing the

student’s work, providing answers on a test, or giving inappropriate

instruction.

Loss of Personal Control


25

o Dependence on paraprofessionals can be a detriment to students wanting to

advocate for themselves.

o Often, decisions and choices are made without the input of the student, the

parent, or the team.

A very important factor is the budgetary impact of maintaining a large number of

paraprofessionals versus the competing needs of other important services and

interventions. Currently, there is a beginning trend by school districts to “trade in”

paraprofessional positions for special education teachers and create clusters of special

education students for co-teaching sections across grades and content subjects.

Developing and Maintaining a Continuum of Services

Prior to 2000, Massachusetts Special Education Regulations, under Chapter 766,

mandated districts to develop IEPs that would “maximize a student’s potential.” At that

time, the Massachusetts standard was the most demanding and comprehensive in the

country. Other states adopted the federal standard under IDEA (Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act) that ensured students make “…effective progress through a

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).”

In 2000, Massachusetts adopted the federal standard of “effective progress.” There has

been ongoing debate as to whether districts need to provide a comprehensive level of

services to special education students or a minimum level of services. This question of

which level to provide, versus the spiraling cost of special education, is often a

continuous and heated controversy in many school districts. The issue becomes even

more of a concern in a challenging economic environment.

In 2001, Congress again passed the landmark act, No Child Left behind (NCLB). The

stated goal of NCLB is “to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and

choice, so that no child is left behind.” In 2013, Congress passed The Student Success

Act. Although this act relinquishes some responsibilities back to the states, it still

emphasizes the closing of the achievement gap and educating all students. These acts

have focused attention on students with increasingly diverse learning needs achieving

high academic performance in general education.

These changes have greatly impacted how special education services are delivered to

students. Prior to these changes, the service delivery relied on “pulling” students out of

the general education classroom to provide instruction that often did not relate to

accessing the curriculum. Students lost important instruction in the classroom which, in

many cases, left them at a significant disadvantage to be successful in participating in

state and local assessments. The co-teaching model of instruction has become an

increasingly popular inclusive school practice. For many school districts, the

development of effective co-teaching models has allowed special education students to

have more access to the general education curriculum. Co-teaching is effective for

students with a variety of instructional needs. The collaboration of the general and

special education teacher can create a classroom environment that differentiates


26

instruction and makes essential accommodations that allow all students to maximize their

potential. General education accommodations to serve students with disabilities in

inclusive settings has required all professionals to work more collaboratively.

To effectively implement this model of instruction, districts need to hire additional staff

or reallocate staff from other special education programs. Currently, Lynnfield does not

have the co-teaching model of instruction in place across all grades at all levels.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004, does not

require inclusion. Instead, the law requires that children with disabilities be educated in

the least restrictive environment (LRE) appropriate to meet their unique needs. IDEA

contemplates that the least restrictive environment analysis begins with placement in the

general education classroom. However, IDEA recognizes that it is not appropriate to

place all children in the general education classroom. Therefore, the law requires school

districts to have a continuum of placements available, extending from general education

classrooms to residential settings, to accommodate the needs of all children with

disabilities. Using the continuum concept makes it more likely that each child is

appropriately placed in an environment that is specifically suited to meet his/her needs.

The law intends that the degree of inclusion be driven by the individual student’s needs

as determined by the evaluation team.

In developing the Individual Education Program (IEP) for a student with disabilities,

IDEA requires the IEP team to consider placement in the general education classroom as

the starting point in determining the appropriate placement for the child. Should the IEP

team determine that the least restrictive environment is not the general education

classroom, consideration must be given to determine what other services outside of the

general education classroom are necessary for the student to make effective progress.

Lynnfield Public Schools has made a concerted effort to develop a continuum of

programming at all levels. More will be discussed on this issue of continuum of

programming and building program capacity in the Recommendations section of this

report.

Emerging Population

The district is experiencing an emerging population of children with

social/emotional/behavioral health needs and complex medical needs at the preschool and

early childhood levels. The preschool and kindergarten programs are finding that children

entering the preschool program are presenting with more issues and concerns related to

dysregulation of behavior and socialization. As these young children matriculate from

preschool programming into kindergarten and grade one, they are placing increasing

pressure on the school-based staff to be more proactive in providing supportive,

therapeutic interventions and social skills development support. This young group of

children places an added responsibility on the school staff because the needs of this

emerging population are becoming more demanding of school staff time, daily.


27

Advocacy and Legal Perspective

A special education evaluation conducted in 2010 contained the following information on

advocacy and legal perspective. It is being presented again, in this report, due to the

significance of these two factors on the Department of Special Services and the school

department as a whole.

Prior to Chapter 766 being enacted, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through

various DESE administered legislative acts, funded the placement of special needs

students into privately operated day and residential school programs. This practice

created a network of private schools within the state to service various disability

populations. Because these programs were established for serving the specific disabilities

of students, over time they became very specialized prior to the enactment of Chapter

766. Most of these programs continue to operate today, even though public schools have

created a continuum of services and programs at the district level and through their

educational collaborative affiliations.

Massachusetts has a long history of advocacy by special interest groups on how special

education operates at the state and local level. The influence by advocates, their

associations, and the interests of other parties can greatly influence what actions a district

may have to undertake to maintain and develop quality programs and services. These

influences can also create an environment at the local level where cost-benefit decisions

are not necessarily made in the best interest of a student, but rather by what the parents

believe is in the best interest of their student. A conflict may arise which can only be

resolved through mediation, a hearing, or in some cases, a settlement.

The public may have little or no knowledge of what a district must do to serve a student

with special needs. When a dispute occurs between the parents and the school district

with regards to the services recommended for a student, the parents have the right to

resolution of the dispute through a third party. Although this action is sanctioned in

special education law and regulations, it does place the burden of evidence on a school

district to prove that their recommendations meet the standard of Free Appropriate Public

Education (FAPE) under the federal statute for meeting the needs of the student. This

action can lead to an expensive out-of-district placement if parents prevail through the

Bureau of Special Education Appeals hearing. The expense for the school district can be

considerable, not only for the placement, but should the parents prevail in a hearing, they

are entitled to recoup their legal costs from the school district. Therefore, school districts

are continually confronted with the issue of cost avoidance when a dispute arises over a

placement within the district or a placement in an out-of-district tuition-based program.

This aspect of special education is an area of which few are aware or fully understand.

School districts, like Lynnfield, are often confronted with the fact that parents have the

means to retain legal counsel and move into “dispute resolutions.” This can be an

expensive line item in the special education budget. The expense is not only a direct cost,

but also an indirect one because it requires the staff to spend its time meeting and

preparing the work that will assist the district in deciding what course of action it will

pursue if a dispute arises


28

This history of educational advocacy greatly impacts the evaluation and placement

process for students determined to be eligible for specialized instruction through special

education, and this can lead to a great deal of uncertainty during the school year. This

advocacy role plays an important part in the issue of expenditures for special education,

not only in staff time, but also in respect to independent evaluations, mediations, and due

process hearings. The results of a due process hearing, or the settlement of a case prior to

a hearing before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, can lead to unanticipated

expenditures during a school year. These expenditures can significantly add to a special

education budget at any given time. There is no guaranteed approach that will ensure an

avoidance of these legal encounters, but quality and defensible internal programs and

services certainly will reduce the potential for greater unanticipated legal and placement

expenditures. The district’s exposure can only be measured by the recent history of legal

involvement for the district. This factor cannot be ignored when formulating a special

education budget and when developing long-range programming and service initiatives.

Fiscal Factors of Special Education

Special education is an expensive educational operation for all school districts in the

Commonwealth. The percentage of the school budget dedicated to special education

across the state has grown over the years.

Table VIII. Statewide Comparison Percentage of the SPED Budget to the

Whole Budget & Census

FISCAL YEAR % OF SPED

BUDGET OF

STATEWIDE

BUDGET

% OF STUDENTS

STATEWIDE ON

IEPS

FY 03 17.1% 15.0%

FY 17 21.1% 17.4%

Source: DESE October Census Reports & End of Year Financial Reports

Table VIII illustrates the statewide growth in the percentage of the special

education budget from FY 2003 to FY 2017 and the increase in the percentage of

students on IEPs for this same period of time. Each district may experience a

different percentage in growth. From the inception of Chapter 766 in September

of 1974, the number of students on IEPs has grown from 81,314 to 167, 530 as of

October 2017. This increase represents more than double the number of students

on IEPs in the forty-three-year period.


29

Table IX. Comparison Percentage of the Lynnfield SPED Budget to the

Whole School Budget

Fiscal Year Lynnfield Statewide

FY 2010 18.2% 19.8%

FY 2015 18.2% 21% Source: DESE End of the Year Fiscal Report

Table IX illustrates that the district’s growth in the special education budget to the

whole school budget has remained stable from FY 2010 to FY 2015. (DESE data

for FY 2016 and FY 2017 is not available).

Table X. Lynnfield Special Education Expenditures, FY 2006 to FY 2015 as

a Percentage of the Whole School Budget A B C D E F G H

Lynnfield Special

-- In-District Instruction-- - Out-of-District Tuition - Combined Total Education

Mass. Public Mass Private

Special Ed School Percentage state

Fiscal Other Schools and and Out-of- Expenditures Operating of Budget average

Year Teaching Instructional Collaboratives State Schools

(A+B+C+D) Budget (E as % of F) percentage

2006 1,649,082 596,647 377,824 785,752 3,409,305 18,828,436 18.1 19.1

2007 1,702,519 587,204 428,855 643,411 3,361,989 19,543,989 17.2 19.4

2008 1,827,879 578,913 364,667 649,706 3,421,165 20,853,488 16.4 19.8

2009 2,152,586 699,659 520,556 565,937 3,938,738 21,564,949 18.3 20.1

2010 2,297,153 720,816 538,116 335,390 3,891,475 22,583,533 17.2 19.8

2011 2,408,463 966,907 502,989 447,473 4,325,832 23,290,254 18.6 19.9

2012 2,666,583 981,944 432,261 507,190 4,587,978 24,354,507 18.8 20.5

2013 3,038,395 896,170 324,868 462,966 4,722,399 25,667,513 18.4 20.9

2014 3,169,894 993,871 215,147 304,308 4,683,220 26,451,612 17.7 20.9

2015 3,345,659 1,012,274 271,931 412,302 5,042,166 27,637,942 18.2 21.0 Source: DESE End of the Fiscal Year Report

Table X illustrates the expenditures for special education over a ten-year period from

2006 to 2015. This table illustrates the growth in expenditures in the various categories.

Over the ten-year period, the percentage of the special education budget to the whole

school budget has averaged 17.9%. For this same period, the state average of the special

education budget to the whole school budget averaged 20.2%. Lynnfield remained below

the statewide percentage for each of the ten years. Lynnfield’s allocation for special

education, over this ten-year period, has been consistent from a low of 17.2% of the

school budget to a high of 18.8% in FY 2012. In a review of the special education

expenditures, increases varied in each category, except for the out-of-district placements

where there have been some decreases. More importantly, there was a decrease in total

out-of-district expenditures over this period of time. This demonstrates the district’s

efforts towards building in-district capacity to maintain students within the district are

attributed to tuition expenditures for out-of-district placements during this period.


30

Table XI. FY 2015 Comparison of the Expenditures and Percentages of the

Special Education Budget to Like Districts Districts Teaching Other

Instructi

on

Mass Public

& Collab

Mass Private Total SPED

Expenditure

Total School

Budget

% of

Whole

Budget

State Average

for FY12

Lynnfield 3,345,659 1,012,274 271,931 412,302 5,042,166 27,637,942 18.2% 21.0%

Medway 3,030,206 830,590 385,465 1,531,877 5,778.138 29,091,169 19.9% 21.0%

North

Reading

4,429,934 750,048 675,048 1,498,983 7,354,613 32,347,749 22.7% 21.0%

Norwell 2,654,696 273,341 572,805 1,187,102 4,687,944 27,864,747 16.8% 21.0%

Sutton 2,726,105 522,253 77,190 325,532 3,651,080 16,155,872 22.6% 21.0%

Source: DESE End of the Year Fiscal Report

Table XI illustrates that Lynnfield’s percentage to the whole budget for special education

is lower than the three like districts and the statewide average but is higher than one like

district. The district’s out-of-district expenditures for FY 2015 were lower than three like

districts, which is a credit to the district’s in-district capacity building. This expenditure

table demonstrates that the district is not an outlier with respect to expenditures for like

districts and the percentage of the special education budget to the whole school budget for

like districts and the statewide average.

Table XII. Comparison of Like Districts of the Special Education Percentage to the

Whole Budget FISCAL

YEARS

LYNNFIELD MEDWAY NORTH

READING

NORWELL SUTTON STATE -WIDE

AVERAGE

2006 18.1% 18.8% 20.2% 17.4% 19.1% 19.1%

2007 17.2% 19.1% 18.7% 17.3% 19.8% 19.4%

2008 16.4% 18.9% 21.2% 16.7% 20.2% 19.8%

2009 18.3% 19,4% 21.6% 16.8% 18.7% 20.1%

2010 17.2% 20.0% 20.9% 16.4% 19.6% 19.8%

2011 18.6% 20.5% 21.8% 16.8% 16.2% 19.9%

2012 18.8% 21.8% 22.7% 16.8% 19.3% 20.5%

2013 18.4% 21.9% 24.3% 15.4% 21.4% 20.9%

2014 17.7% 17.1% 23.7% 16.3% 22.4% 20.9%

2015 18.2% 19.9% 22.7% 16.8% 22.6% 21.0%

Source: DESE End of the Fiscal Year Report


31

Table XII illustrates that there is a gradual growth in the special education percentage to

the whole budget for like districts and the state average. The districts demonstrate a

gradual increase, and occasionally a decrease from year-to-year. Lynnfield demonstrated

a decrease in the percentage of the special education budget to the whole budget for FY

2007, 2008, 2010, and 2014. Medway demonstrated a decrease for two years, FY 2008

and FY 2014. Norwell demonstrated a decrease in the percentage of the special

education budget to the whole budget in FY 2013. Sutton had two years over this period

of time where the percentage of the special education budget to the whole budget

decreased from the previous year, FY 2009, and FY 2011. What this illustrates is that

Lynnfield’s percentage of its special education budget to the whole budget is not an

outlier.

Out-of-District Placements

School districts are continually confronted with how to contain the growth in special

education expenditures. The three major expenses that affect the special education

budget are personnel, out-of-district tuitions, and transportation. Lynnfield has 24

students in out-of-district placements at the time of this report. This represents 6% of

the school district’s special education census. 28% of these placements are a result of

binding settlements with parents (source: October School Committee Presentation).

The district will need to respond to the cost-benefit of further in-district program

development for specific disability groups of students. With the increased pressure of

the special education budget on the whole school budget, the district should formulate a

strategy to expand and develop further in-district appropriate programming over the

next three to five years. The cost of one out-of-district placement and the cost of the

transportation for that placement can support, on the average, one experienced

professional position. The statewide average cost of a day school placement is

$61,000.00. To reduce the number of students in out-of-district placements and build

program capacity to lower the number of students exiting the district, further internal

program development will be required. Factoring in transportation costs, the district

would be able to start up a program that is fully staffed and appropriately equipped,

based on student population cohorts. Resources need to be dedicated to this endeavor.

Appropriate space, staffing, materials, and supplies must be built into the equation that

leads to program development. Many times, a district needs to set the priority of

program development to a specific disability population and begin the implementation

on a small scale. These efforts will produce results because the district will have a

program in place to accept students who will be transitioning from one school level to

the next, as well as any move-ins to the district. By reducing the reliance on out-of-

district placements, reducing the exiting of students from the district, and having a

student(s) return to the district, the district will have taken steps that will assist in

containing, and possibly reducing, the growth in tuition expenditures.

As the district has experienced growth at the early childhood level, it is also experiencing

growth in students with autism and emotional/social/behavioral health needs. These

populations require intensive staffing with an array of related services to appropriately

support these students. There are no easy answers, but the district must decide that they

will continue, in the long term, to develop in-district programs when there are sufficient


32

cohorts to sustain programming. This proactive approach will assist in reducing the

number of students that are placed outside the district. Over time, the growth in special

education expenditures for out-of-district tuitions and transportation costs will be

contained.

The reality is that “good programming” is costly. It is labor intensive and requires a

substantial commitment from the administration and the district’s teaching staff. It can,

however, also be cost-effective. When districts develop a full continuum of services,

they can provide quality programs for special needs students. The benefits of having an

appropriate continuum of programming across the district, for all disabilities, at all levels,

will lead to the prevention of students exiting the district, the containment in the growth

of the cost for special education, and the means to provide for students within the district

by building capacity. Out-of-district placements, next to personnel expenditures, are the

single largest impact on a special education budget. Lynnfield needs to continue to

monitor student needs and trends in placements to ensure that internal program options

are available to meet student needs.

Educational Experience

The factor of educational experience was also included in the 2010 report. It is essential

that this factor become part of the mission of the department in addressing the needs of

students with disabilities. To what extent can the district provide an appropriate

comprehensive educational experience for students? There is little question or doubt that

Lynnfield is willing to meet the academic needs of its students with special needs.

Lynnfield, like many school districts, is facing new expectations as to what the district

should provide for students with significant disabilities. These new expectations need to

be continually assessed for each student with respect to program and service options,

especially as the population of students with more severe needs moves from one level to

the next. It is a factor that all evaluation team members must seriously consider when

developing and designing placement recommendations. The overall culture of the school

community will need to continue to gain a greater understanding of these new

expectations, and, over time, the issue of expectations will need to be continuously

reviewed on a case-by-case basis.


33

V. Notable Observations

Through this evaluation process, it was apparent that the school district’s administration

is aware of the special education needs of the individual students. The following

observations are provided to assist the district with the planning of the work that needs to

be completed regarding the enhancement of quality programming from preschool through

grade 12. These observations are not presented in an order of priority.

Specific Observations:

1. The district should consider expanding formal training of mindfulness techniques for

assistants and new staff, given the increase in students with anxiety and other related

issues/disorders.

2. Approximately two years ago, the Lynnfield Special Services Office developed a

comprehensive Special Education Procedural Manual for special education personnel.

This manual includes information on all aspects of the special education process. It

should be annually updated as laws, regulations, policies, and practice can change, and

then it should be disseminated to all district staff. The district should consider offering an

online version and highlight what every educator needs to know.

3. A sampling of 26 IEPs from preschool to grade 12 indicated that the narratives under

Student Strengths/Key Evaluation Summary (page one) were excessively long, and testing

results were not summarized for their educational implications. In addition, the same

lengthy testing results were repeated under Current Performance Level on the Goal page

of the IEP.

4. In some reviewed IEPs there was confusion on what an accommodation is versus what

specially designed instruction is.

5. Many accommodations were not student specific, but rather were “best practice” from

the district’s DCAP. The district may want to consider having a copy of the DCAP at

IEP meetings and checking off the ones that are relevant to the special needs student.

This document could be attached to the IEP.

6. Parents at the middle school reported a need to have regular education staff and

assistants trained in Collaborative Problem Solving and Social Thinking as many more

special needs students are being included in regular education classes.

7. The high school does not have data assessment teams and time similar to the

elementary and middle schools. Assessment data at the high school is done thru the

various content departments.

8. The Second Step Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Program which helps the most

challenging students make progress in emotional management, situational awareness, and

academic achievement, is not consistently implemented district-wide.


34

9. The preschool program curriculum is theme-based and does not currently use a social

skills curriculum across all classrooms.

10. The Special Education Coordinator for the Huckleberry and Summer Street

elementary schools shares in the programmatic oversight of the preschool program along

with the Director of Special Services, principal, and BCBA.

11. The preschool program does not have documented criteria for entrance into

programs.

12. At LMS, due to scheduling conflicts and the need for more training of general

education staff on communication strategies that can be incorporated into the

mainstreamed environment, most of the speech and language services are provided

outside the classroom rather than inside the general education classroom.

13. The process for transitioning special education students from one level to the next is

not documented throughout the district.

14. There is a need for the district to have a documented process for tracking what

services are provided to typical students who may be struggling academically and

socially/emotionally. There is also a need to document what services an IEP student

receives beyond special education services. This would help the middle school with

student placement and perhaps reduce referrals.

15. Interviewees at the middle school indicated that the transition of special needs

students from LMS to LHS is improving with a parent night and a shadowing day, but the

process should be reviewed and documented.

16. Information gathered from the interviews, indicate that the caseloads, and

responsibilities of the middle school psychologist, combined with an increase of students

with social/emotional/behavioral health needs, indicate that there is a need for increased

staffing. Given the current demands of the position, the psychologist is not able to fulfil

the role and responsibilities of the position appropriately.

17. The middle school staff indicated the need for LGBT training and increased

professional development for general education teachers on creating a trauma-sensitive

learning environment as well as strategies for students struggling with

social/emotional/behavioral health needs.

18. Seventh and eighth grade students with special needs are scheduled into the resource

room for additional support during F block, team time. Eighth grade staff report that this

time often has too many students due to drop-ins. The staffing and criteria for non-IEP

students should be reviewed so that the time is effective for all.

19. While the co-teaching model was evident at the LHS and LMS, interviewees

indicated that further training in the various co-teaching models is needed. Interviewees


35

indicated that that there is a need for observation by a co-teaching consultant to provide

feedback to collaborating teachers on their planning and instruction. There is not a

coaching model of consultation in place for the staff participating in the co-teaching

model.

20. There is a need for a general education study skills program at the middle and high

schools. This program would provide support to the students not eligible for special

education services that are struggling with organizational and study skills. A program of

this nature would also assist in reducing the number of students referred for a special

education evaluation at these schools because Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions would be in

place.

21. The data collection approach of students’ performance is by paper/pencil which is

found to be cumbersome. Interviewed staff indicated they would like to learn of more

effective methods.

22. The Student Support Program services students at all levels. The lead teachers must

be familiar with the academic content and expectations of all grades, while also deal with

the social/emotional/behavioral health needs of the students.

23. Interviews with the Lynnfield Middle School administrative team, the lead student

support teacher, and the psychologist assigned to this Student Support Program indicated

that the staffing pattern and the entrance criteria for this program should be reviewed.

24. There is not a working document for entrance/exit criteria for which students with

language-based learning disabilities are assigned to the Language-Based Program versus

the Learning Center Program.

25. Eighty percent (80%) of the Learning Center services for K-2 at the Summer School

are conducted as pull-out sessions.

26. Interviews and observations indicated that the co-taught kindergarten model created

this year at the Summer Street School was a necessary option given the number of

complex special needs students entering kindergarten. The district will need to annually

assess which grades and which elementary building would benefit by a co-taught class

and provide ongoing coaching to these teams.

27. Despite high staffing in the co-taught kindergarten classes, a student enrollment of 22

is large given the class space and the severity of the students’ needs.

28. There is currently not a co-teaching model for grades 1 and 2.

29. The 5-day extended day model for preschoolers with more substantial needs has

community peers coming for 2 to 5 days.


36

30. The preschool application has minimal information about the community students

who apply to the program.

31. There is no written documentation in terms of the responsibilities of the four

administrators who oversee the preschool program and staff. These administrators

include the principal, the Director of Special Services, the BCBA, and the Special

Education Coordinator.

32. The 3 and 4-year old preschool programs do not have documented criteria for special

needs students attending the 2 to 5 days, half-day programs.

33. The community peers in the 3-year-old and the 4-year-old integrated preschool

classrooms and extended day preschool class for significant needs do not come on a

consistent day.

34. The Huckleberry, Summer Street, and preschool Special Educator Coordinator could

clearly articulate her responsibilities, but there is no written document for this position.

35. Several interviewed staff members mentioned the need for professional development

on growth mindset, based on the research by Dr. Carol Dweck. 36. The LHS Student Support Team (SST) acts as a Tier I & II model for academic and

social support. Parents do not participate in this model.

37. Interviewees indicated that further professional development is needed for general

education staff on their understanding and awareness of how a disability impacts on

student learning and “how to” work with the students with disabilities. The

Recommendations section of this report will address many topics of professional

development that interviewees indicated that the district will need to address.

38. General education staff indicated that a clear understanding of what the various

special education staff and programs are responsible for is lacking.

39. There continues to be a concern among secondary level staff as to “What is right?”

and “What is fair?” when it comes to accommodations for students with special needs.

Progress has been made on this issue, but it remains a concern.

40. Secondary level staff are concerned with the increase in hospitalization of students

with social/emotional/behavioral health needs and school refusal cases.

41. One of the speech and language pathologists is split between Summer Street

Elementary School and the middle school. This assignment makes push-in therapies more difficult, given the limited availability to work in a classroom at a time conducive

to working on speech and language goals. With the therapist’s assignment to multiple

grade levels, it is more difficult to use classroom materials therapeutically and arrange

consultation time.


37

42. The preschool and elementary staff were trained in Social Thinking and Zones of

Regulation three years ago, but only some teachers at the preschool and elementary levels

are implementing these methodologies with fidelity.

43. The district does not have a co-teaching manual containing documented forms,

procedures, and practices for effective implementation of various models of instruction.

.


38

VI. Recommendations

The following recommendations are a direct outcome of the district-wide special

education evaluation process that was completed of the Lynnfield Public Schools. The

findings listed in the previous section are the foundation for these recommendations.

Each recommendation is followed by an explanation that is intended to further expand on

the rationale for the recommendation. These recommendations are intended to provide

insight and direction for the administration and school-based personnel to make decisions

regarding the direction that they wish to follow with respect to the existing programs and

services. These recommendations should be viewed as a point of departure for involved

personnel to engage in discussions that will lead to the development of program and

service enhancements that continue to meet the needs of students with special needs.

There will be a need for the stakeholders to come together and develop an action plan(s)

that is comprised of short and long-term steps. Budget implications, as well as structural

and organizational issues, need to be well-understood so that appropriate programs and

services for students and staff can be developed. Through an inclusive process of

discussion, a plan will emerge that is comprehensive, meaningful, and purposeful.

Program and Staffing Oversight

1) The district has developed and invested resources in some very successful

programs/services for students with disabilities. Efforts need to be made to ensure

that they continue to meet the needs of the students for which they were developed,

and the personnel working in these programs should receive the supervision

required to remain effective.

Explanation:

o Establishment of a mechanism of program/service oversight

Lynnfield Public Schools has developed in-district programs/services to meet

the needs of the disability categories of Autism, Communication, Specific

Learning Disability, Emotional, and Developmental Delay. It is critical that

these programs continue to service the students for which they were intended.

The decision-making process for placing students in programs within the

district, as indicated above, is unclear. School-based personnel need to fully

understand the entrance criteria for each disability category and the fact that

these programs are designed to meet specific disabilities based on the mission of

each program and service. Program evaluations conducted in other districts

have revealed that many quality programs are compromised by including

students that do not meet the criteria of the designated program/service. This, in

turn, may jeopardize the integrity of the established program/service.

To maintain the integrity of each program/service, it is imperative that

administrative oversight is in place, thus ensuring that each program/service

maintains its mission and is serving the needs of the designated population.


39

Currently, in the opinion of the evaluators, the system in place for oversight is

under stress due to the multiple responsibilities of those designated to provide

oversight.

The district should undertake a review of the current oversight model and

practices that are in place and determine to what extent they need to be revised,

updated, or reformulated through further planned action. The administration

needs to develop a plan that enables the district to provide effective oversight of

the programs/services and the staff who are charged with operating the programs

and delivering the services. The fact is that when oversight is not provided on a

consistent basis, programs and services can drift away from their mission,

unintentionally.

o Establishment of an annual review of program populations

An annual review of students placed in each program should take place to

ensure that the programs continue to meet the specific population for which they

were developed. Teachers and building administrators should be consulted to

access their input. Much effort has been committed to the programs, and efforts

to ensure their continued effectiveness will be of benefit to all students, teachers,

parents, and administrators.

This type of review will also allow the Department of Special Education

Services to remain proactive to the needs of the students by identifying reasons

for an increase in a specific service, such as reading instruction at the middle

and high schools, and focusing attention on the programs and services needed to

address these identified needs.

o Clarification of building and Central Office responsibilities

A clear delineation of which office (school or special education) is responsible

for reacting to staff should be developed to allow school-based staff to obtain

answers to questions/concerns in a timely manner. The principals and the

Director of Special Services have a very positive working relationship. To

ensure that this interaction remains proactive and effective, a working document

should be developed to ensure that administrative responses occur in a timely

manner, with all parties in agreement.

Preschool Programming Development

2) A data-driven teaching curriculum needs to be implemented.

Explanation:

o Currently, the preschool uses a monthly, theme-based approach for their

preschool curriculum, (e.g., transportation). The teachers are following the

National Common Core Standards and the Massachusetts Guidelines for


40

Preschool Learning Experiences. While knowing these standards are essential, it

is not enough to ensure that all preschoolers are exposed to the same rich

curriculum.

o In kindergarten and above, districts provide teachers with a curriculum for ELA,

math, science, and social studies. This is not happening in the current preschool

program. Observations and interviews of the Lynnfield preschool indicate that all

classrooms are not implementing similar curriculum materials and the same

content. If the district decides to continue with a theme-based curriculum, the

preschool will need to develop units with the guidance of literacy and math

specialists that are familiar with young children. Additionally, a scope and

sequence that is appropriate for preschoolers would need to be followed.

o Another approach would be to provide a rich curriculum across all domains of

learning by shifting to an existing research-based curriculum such as Creative

Curriculum, Tools of the Mind, or Opening the World of Learning (OWLS). This

would require the district to purchase such programs and provide initial and

ongoing training in the first year of implementation. Many Massachusetts

preschools have moved in this direction and see solid outcomes for students with

readiness for kindergarten entrance. The program evaluator who observed the

preschool program can provide the names of districts to observe.

3) The preschool should re-assess the option of offering 4-year-old community peers

three days a week on different days. Some students come Monday, Wednesday, and

Friday; others attend Monday, Tuesday, and Friday.

Explanation:

o This type of scheduling is not effective for maximizing learning and for students

to develop social relationships. Teachers are not able to teach sequentially, and

they must “catch up” students who miss material on days they don’t attend. Many

special needs students need additional time to develop social relationships;

therefore, one of the primary goals for inclusion is compromised.

o Ideally, unless a 4-year-old does not have the physical stamina to participate in a

5-day-a-week program, having the 4-year-old come daily in preparation for a full

day of kindergarten the following year makes both academic and social sense.

The curriculum for preschool is more rigorous than in prior years. Many

preschool programs are changing to this model.


41

4) The preschool should consider developing a comprehensive application and a

group screening process for community peers.

Explanation:

o Currently, the application for entrance as a community peer has no information

about the applicant’s development. Parents select the option of sessions they

prefer, and send a non-refundable $25 deposit. In early December, the preschool

presents a Preschool Registration Information Night for interested community

parents. Students who apply are individually screened for ten minutes in the

month of January. Unless the parent or school has concerns, the child is accepted.

The screening process and application do not give any information on how the

child will function in a group setting. Most districts, minimally, have a detailed

application about developmental milestones.

o This individual screening gives the staff no indication of how the child will react

in a group situation, which is the expectation in a preschool classroom and

beyond. Some districts have used a group screening process which can be

accomplished in one school day. Groups of 6 to 8 applicants come in for 45-60

minutes and go through a shortened preschool day with meeting time, free play,

and activities involving gross and fine motor skills. Some of the preschool staff

members lead the activities while the others observe and note any concerns. At

the end of each group, staff members review their findings. If there are no

concerns, students are placed in the lottery. If there are concerns, the Early

Childhood Coordinator contacts the parent with a follow-up plan. This might be a

referral or a one-on-one screening.

o By observing the students in this type of group format, staff are better equipped to

balance each preschool class, behaviorally, and provide appropriate language

models. Since parents remain in the room during the screening, this allows them

an opportunity to meet the staff and view a typical preschool classroom. In

addition, a designated person such as the elementary special educator,

psychologist, or Early Childhood Coordinator is able to answer parents’ questions

or ask questions that arise based on the detailed Preschool Application Form.

5) Three times a year, the preschool and kindergarten teachers would benefit from

scheduled visits to each other’s classrooms, combined with times to meet for sharing

their observations.

Explanation:

o Preschool teachers need to become familiar with the kindergarten program in

terms of the daily schedule and terminology/vocabulary used throughout the

kindergarten day. The transition of students to kindergarten would be improved if


42

familiar terms such as morning meeting, centers, and must-dos were used prior to

kindergarten entrance.

o As more complex students enter kindergarten from the Lynnfield Public Schools

preschool, kindergarten teachers would benefit by observing these students at an

early date, and observing the use of effective strategies and materials that may be

needed in their kindergarten classes.

o Combined preschool and kindergarten assessment meeting times might be the

time when some of the discussions can occur.

6) Three administrators, the principal, BCBA Program Director, and the Special

Education Coordinator, share the responsibility of supervision and management of

the preschool program. These individuals keep the Director of Special Services

informed.

Explanation:

o In the short term, the district should consider developing a flow chart that

delineates the roles and responsibilities of these three administrators as they relate

to the preschool program, to avoid redundancy and eliminate confusion. In

addition, the responsibilities of the classroom teachers that go beyond planning

and instructing students should also be documented.

o The highly skilled and well-regarded Early Childhood Coordinator of both

elementary schools is the primary person for the preschool program in terms of

referrals, parent work, Early Intervention, weekly preschool staff time, and

chairing/coordinating team meetings. The district should reevaluate this position

to determine if there is sufficient time, given her district responsibilities, to work

with the preschool staff in terms of the implementation of a curriculum, new

screening procedures for community and special needs children, and continued

program development.

7) The preschool staff would benefit by increased, dedicated team time under the

supervision of the elementary Special Education Coordinator.

Explanation:

o Currently, preschool staff members meet once a week for 30 minutes with the

Special Education Coordinator. The coordinator develops an agenda and invites

staff to add items for discussion. Given the population of the preschool, this time

appears to be sufficient to discuss the current students and those who are being

referred.


43

o There is not sufficient time, however, to move the program forward in terms of

curriculum, program design, new screening procedures, entrance and exit criteria,

and other initiatives referred to in this program evaluation. To provide additional

time, the district will need to review the existing classroom hours to determine the

best way to find a common block of time for this purpose. Providing substitute

coverage is one way to implement team time without reducing students’

instructional time. The district could hire/train the same person each week to

provide this coverage for staff so that student instruction is not compromised.

o The preschool staff needs time to come together, as a team, to conduct Arena

Assessments on incoming Early Intervention referrals or other referrals.

Play-based group screenings are more comfortable and natural for young children

and their parents, and generally less time is required than individual screenings.

Co-Teaching Model of Instruction

8) The administration needs to decide to what degree the implementation of the co-

teaching model of instruction is going to exist across the district.

Explanation:

o The district is to be commended for its efforts to build a co-teaching model of

instruction. As indicated in the 2010 Program Evaluation Report regarding co-

teaching, there continues to be a need, given the high percentage of students

participating in general education classes, for the district to make a greater

commitment to this instructional model. The question that confronts the district

is: “Is the district going to operate two models, a co-teaching model and an in-

class support model?” If so, then the opportunity to expand the co-teaching model

will be limited.

o To properly operate co-teaching and in-classroom instructional support models,

there needs to be clear, concise, and agreed upon statements that stress the

purpose and intent of these two separate models of instruction. There is confusion

among school-based staff as to exactly what the co-teaching and in-classroom

models are and how they are to function.

o Additionally, there are varying perceptions of the role and function of a special

education teacher and the special education support staff assigned to a general

education classroom.

o Based on the requirements of the district’s Department of Special Services, the

district’s belief system about inclusion, its culture and its mission regarding the

inclusion of students with disabilities, the district needs to state its practices for

co-teaching and inclusion.


44

o The descriptors need to incorporate evidence-based “best practice” and reflect

the positive components of current practices at the schools.

o The descriptors need to indicate which model or models of instruction will be

utilized and when they will be utilized. The four models commonly referred to

are Supportive Teaching, Parallel Teaching, Complementary Teaching, and

Team Teaching. A resource reference is A Guide to Co-Teaching: Practical

Tips for Facilitating Student Learning. R. Villa, J. Townsand & A. Nevin.

Crown Press, California. Another resource is Co-Teaching, a handbook for

creating and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools.

Marilyn Friend, Greensboro, NC 27455-2590, www.coteach.com

o The descriptors need to be developed in collaboration with all current

participants of the co-teaching and in-class models, and these descriptors should

be subject to periodic reviews and updates.

o Many districts are gradually eliminating the in-class model of support and are

moving toward the co-teaching model of instruction. This is a step that the

district may want to explore to reduce confusion over the two models. This

change has enabled districts to expand the roles of the two collaborating teachers

and their impact on instruction. There is a distinction between the two models.

For the in-class model, paraprofessionals provide support; in the co-teaching

model, special and general education teachers jointly conduct instruction.

o Professional development needs to be an ongoing activity for those staff

engaged in the co-teaching model. It is imperative that the collaborating

teachers continue to have common planning time on a weekly basis, if not bi-

weekly.

o Coaching support by a consultant should be another aspect of professional

development that is incorporated into the support of the model and the staff.

o Periodic meetings should occur throughout the school year for the collaborating

teachers and building administrators, along with the Director of Special Services

and the curriculum directors convening. These meetings should allow for the

participants to explore and discuss concerns, issues, successes, and changes that

need to be considered.

o Current participating staff members articulated that guidelines to address the

issue of the roles and responsibilities of the two teachers within the co-teaching

model are lacking.

o An operating manual/handbook needs to be developed to provide guidelines

with respect to grading, homework assignments, examples of curriculum and

instructional accommodations, sample behavioral intervention strategies, types

of shared teaching activities that can be conducted, effective use of common


45

planning time, suggested strategies for problem solving, sample test forms,

progress reporting forms, suggested systems of communication, and the “how

to,” “when,” “what,” “where” and “who” statements, etc. This type of

organizational product will reduce, if not eliminate confusion between and

among the teachers.

o The teachers, with administrative assistance and oversight, should develop this

operating manual. This can be conducted as a study group or as a summer

workshop activity.

o The district should continue to encourage and increase push-in related services

delivery and special educator support rather than pull-out services.

Increase of Social/Emotional Needs, District-wide

9) The district needs to continue to respond to the increase in the trend of students

exhibiting social/emotional/behavioral health needs through further service

development.

Explanation:

o Virtually, all interviewees reported that the trend in students exhibiting

social/emotional/behavioral health needs has substantially increased. This applies

to typical students as well as students on IEPs. Staff report that students exhibit

stress in the form of anxiety, school avoidance, dysregulation, sadness, and school

refusal. For some students at the secondary level, this has led to hospitalization.

o The district has responded to this issue by adding the position of School

Adjustment Counselor (SAC) to the high school. Though this is a step in the right

direction, this position is insufficient to meet the apparent, stated needs at the high

school. In-addition, the district has conducted numerous professional

development offering that focus on the needs of students exhibiting

social/emotional/behavioral health needs. Many of these offerings are intended to

raise staff awareness and appreciation for the needs of this population at all levels.

However, more consistency needs to be applied to the professional development

and ongoing training (spread out over the school year) that allows staff to acquire

the skills required to be able to effectively work with these students. One-time

presentations add little to the skillset of staff when they are not following a

prescribed course of study.

o The needs of the students are, at times, very intense. The district personnel need a

variety of supports so they can stay current with the changing trends for this group

of students. As with professional development experiences, the school-based

personnel require continuous input. It is unrealistic to expect the staff to rely on


46

one another for problem solving strategies as well as understand the clinical needs

of students and their families.

o Clinical consultation for building administrators, school psychologists, School

Adjustment Counselors, guidance counselors, team chairpersons, and other point

personnel will enable them to have access to individuals who can provide an

objective view, provide input for the individual needs of the students, provide

direction on how to best address these needs, and provide insight on how to

adapt services and procedures that will enhance the daily experiences of these

students.

o Consultations need to be in place, but they do not necessarily need to be

conducted on a weekly basis. In previous program evaluations, the evaluators

have found that districts contracted service for a set number of hours for the

year. A plan to utilize those designated hours throughout the calendar school

year can easily be established. When the need is greater, more hours would be

utilized. For the role of the consultant and the usage of their time to be

effective, flexibility is essential. As a model, the usual number of consultation

hours for the year is 50 to 70 hours for a district.

o The district needs to collect data on this issue and determine a plan of action that

will address the need through the development of expanded services of outreach

and support for these students. This may be in the form of additional SAC

service for the middle and high school, redefining the role of the school

psychologist to be available for more student assistance either through one-on-

one or group support, and/or the development of a specific training program for

designated school-based staff.

o The middle school, based on the review of written documentation, observations,

and interviews, has the lowest level of support for students with

social/emotional/behavioral health needs. The additional staffing of a School

Adjustment Counselor is needed to assist with the increasing demand for service

at this level.

Professional Development

10) The district needs to develop a more comprehensive approach to professional

development experiences by focusing on regular and special education topics for all

school-based personnel.

Explanation:

o Interviewed staff members expressed an interest and need in having more

frequent and in-depth training opportunities that focus on the following:


47

Eligibility process and specialized instruction

Specific disabilities and the characteristics of a disability

How the disability impacts on learning

The “how to” with respect to instruction for all disability categories

using the case study model

Managing challenging classroom behaviors

Trauma and the impact on learning

Trauma-sensitive classroom

Servicing the various needs of the student population, particularly

students on the autism spectrum and students with behavioral/mental

health needs

Executive functioning

The co-teaching model of instruction

How to deal with difficult team meetings

How to effectively communicate and collaborate with parents

Conducting functional behavioral assessments

Writing behavioral intervention plans (BIPs)

More types of instructional interventions and strategies

Positive behavioral interventions

Section 504

WIAT assessment training

LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender)

Classroom data collection for teachers and assistants using apps

technology rather than paper/pencil

Training in Zones of Regulation, Social Thinking, and Second Step for

new staff (with a review for principals and current staff)

Training for speech and language providers to provide push-in services

and more of a consultation model at the middle school

(This training should be provided to teachers at the middle and high

school levels, so they can learn to embed strategies in their daily

lessons with special needs students who have receptive and expressive

communication deficits.)

o Staff members want a greater understanding of the difference between a typical

student who is struggling and a student who is eligible for specialized instruction.

They also want clarification on exactly what specialized instruction is.

o There needs to be a discussion of the issues of “What is right?” versus “What is

fair?” There was some expressed concern, frustration, and a lack of

understanding concerning appropriate grading, student workloads, and

assignments for students with disabilities. Interviewed staff expressed interest in

these issues and suggested that a study group format would be useful.

Interviewees appeared to be struggling with the additional benefits, supports or

accommodations that a student with special needs may need to be successful

versus what a typical student needs.


48

o Training needs to be structured so that topics are dealt with in-depth and are

combined with follow-up opportunities to review implemented practices. Half-

year or year-long course offerings should be considered along with on-line course

opportunities for staff..

o Coaching and follow-up sessions should be ongoing experiences for all

participating staff.

o Training needs to be designed by groups of professionals and support staff so

that it is meaningful to them. The training experience should be designed with

respect to the professional experience of the audience. Not all staff should be

presented with the same information. Training needs to be designed with

respect to the current knowledge and experience of the various groups and

audiences. Specialists such as School Adjustment Counselors, speech and

language therapists, psychologists, guidance counselors, etc. should have the

opportunity to attend training that is specific to their field of expertise. In some

cases, this may require off-site attendance at conferences and/or workshops.

Another option would be to approach neighboring districts, through the

collaborative, to see if they would be interested in participating in the

development of training for “low incidence” professionals.

o Coaching and follow-up sessions should be ongoing experiences for all

participating staff.

Evidence-based Practice, “Best Practice”

11) There needs to be a thorough review of evidence-based, “best practice” that is

applicable to the various special education instruction and support programs

currently operating within the district.

Explanation:

o The district offers an array of various programs and support services that are

designed, based on the designated needs of the special education population.

This is an effective approach for servicing the diverse special education

population within the school. The district’s current use of Instructional Rounds

and the 6-week data teams are also very effective approaches to monitor

instructional practices. However, because the needs of the population are

continuously changing, these changes in students’ needs warrant a change in the

approaches that special education instructors utilize to service students.

o District leadership needs to begin a review process with all special education

staff to determine the following:

What evidenced-based practices are currently being utilized?


49

How effective are these practices on student outcomes, performance?

What forms of data collection are in place?

Do they meet the identified needs of the students?

o Changes in strategies of instructional and behavioral intervention practices

should be aligned with the true definition of the various programs, along with

the intent, purpose, function, and outcome for the students within the programs.

Many positive experiences of teaching and providing instruction were observed,

but there needs to be a review of all practices to ensure that these practices

follow evidence-based practice. Students need to be challenged; there needs to

be rigor to the expectations for students. Without this standard, the achievement

gap for the special education population will not close.

o Staff members need to design strategies that will allow students to be shared

among programs and services. Students should have access to program options

and choices. They do not always fit nicely into one model or service. The

sharing of a student among special education staff and programs may enable the

student to benefit from the expertise of other special education staff and other

program designs.

o This recommendation applies to all the models of instruction and programs at all

levels, including the in-classroom support model (inclusion).

o The district needs to ensure that adequate supports, additional time for

concentrated small group instruction, and follow-up monitoring is provided.

This concentrated type of support may need to come through the elimination of

current school-based instruction on subjects and specials.

Special Education Program/Service Entrance/Exit Criteria

12) Clear, concise, well-established, and adhered to entrance and exit criteria need

to be reviewed periodically for all special education programs and services to ensure

that program missions are aligned with student needs.

Explanation:

o The district has put forth effort in developing resources to accommodate mild to

severe special needs. This investment has been beneficial to the district as quality

programming and related services for students have been provided. Although

personnel from each program could articulate what they perceive as the entrance

criteria for their specific program, they were less specific with regards to exit

criteria.

o For all the programs and related services, stated entrance and exit criteria need to

be in place that are based on evidence-based practice and current research, and


50

they should reflect the mission and goals of each program/service. For the

programs and services that provide a continuum of programming and services, it

is essential that entrance criteria, exit criteria, and referral protocols be adhered to

as stated, and they need to be structured in a sequential manner for each

individual program and service.

o Several of the programs/services have entrance and exit criteria in place, but they

are limited in scope and are not clearly understood by some special and general

education personnel. The establishment of these criteria can be completed, in

collaboration, when program descriptions and personnel roles and responsibilities

are being updated.

o The same needs to be done for the related services of speech and language

therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and counseling services. There

are established, professional standards for these services. Discharge from these

services is infrequent, even when stated goals have been mastered. It is essential

that exit criteria be formulated and followed, so that when students succeed they

can either move to less service time or be discharged.

o If the related services providers of speech and language therapy, occupational

therapy, and physical therapy have written entrance and exit criteria in place, this

would ensure that caseloads are appropriate and that students are recommended

for a change in service at the appropriate time, not just at annual reviews and re-

evaluations. Too often, students continue to receive a related service for an

undetermined time such as a full year, or year after year. With established

entrance and exit criteria, students will be able to have a service reduced, when

necessary, or be discharged from that service at the appropriate time.

o The establishment of entrance and exit criteria, based on evidence-based practice,

will assist the district in reducing the number of students on IEPs, the possible

length of time a student is assigned to a specific program, and determine the

duration of time that a student receives a specific service.

o Practices like these can also lead to the potential increase of time for the students

from these programs to have access to general education.

o Entrance criteria act as a gate keeper into any one of these specialized programs.

When entrance criteria are followed with fidelity, the integrity of the program is

maintained. Referral to any of these programs is a referral for consideration of

placement, not a referral for placement.

o Each program needs to develop a clear process of entrance into the program.

There should be an Intake Review Process that ensures that the student and the

program are an appropriate “fit,” and that the student being placed in the program

will benefit from the placement; the placement is not simply one of convenience.


51

Transition Practices

13) Transition practices need to be documented for all levels and shared with all

regular and special educators and administrators.

Explanation:

o Each year, transition activities are conducted for students moving from one level

to the next. The district has made attempts to ensure that transition steps are in

place at all levels. The steps that are in place for transition appear to be

somewhat structured. However, transition appears to be viewed differently by

school-based personnel involved from the preschool level to the elementary

school level, from the elementary school level to the middle school level, and

from the middle school level to the high school level. This lack of consistency

can, and does, lead to confusion among the staff at all levels.

o Staff members are performing the steps for transition that need to occur, but

there is a tendency for each program and level to shape the process somewhat

differently. It would be beneficial to review the steps with all involved staff to

ensure that practices and procedures are being consistently followed.

o It is not only essential to have written procedures in place that designate

timelines for various activities of transition, but definitions of the roles and

responsibilities of those engaged in the transition activities at each level should

also be included. It is recommended that the district develop very specific steps

for the transition process from one level to the next. The sharing of student

information to determine the most appropriate programming and support

services for students should not be left to annual reviews at the end of the school

year, a “move up day,” or one meeting held in the spring. Planning needs to

begin in the winter months of January or February, and communication and

periodic meetings should be structured throughout the spring months based on a

set timeline for the various activities that ensure that the actual transition of the

student is completed in a manner that ensures success.

o Transition needs to be uniform in practice and consistently followed. In the

development of the IEP for students transitioning from one level to the next, the

sending team should identify the goals, and the receiving team should develop

the schedule as it relates to the service grid of the IEP, determine the frequency

of the service, and decide the setting where the service is to be provided. This

approach eliminates potential conflicts by the team of the sending program/level

when making recommendations for services.


52

Improving Delivery and Effectiveness of Middle School Speech and Language Services

14) The district should consider providing more speech and language services in a

student’s mainstream classes with a co-teaching (SLP and classroom teacher)

model and SLP consultation model.

Explanation:

o Currently, speech and language services are provided out of the classroom

because it is difficult for the speech and language pathologist to work on a

student’s goals during subject time. This appears to be due in part to general

education teachers needing training on how to effectively work on

communication goals with content material.

o The district may want to consider a summer training program for middle school

content teachers to help them understand how to work on various

communication goals in their classrooms.

o There should be weekly time for content teachers to consult with the SLP to

discuss classroom lessons (goals and objectives), delivery methods, and

modification of materials. The amount of time will be dependent on the needs

of the individual student.


53

VII. Summary

The Director of Special Services requested that the Northshore Education Consortium

provide consultants to conduct a district-wide program evaluation of special education

programs and related services in the Lynnfield Public Schools. This evaluation was

focused on determining the status of the special education programming, including what

is working well in the programs as well as areas of concern that staff and parents have

regarding programming needs. The administration wanted to secure recommendations

that will assist in short and long-range planning for the enhancement of special education

programming.

The evaluation process consisted of a two-hour review of written documents for Pre-K

through grade 12 special education programming. It included a description of the

program, roles and responsibilities, census and budget, curriculum materials, procedures

and practices, and a sampling of IEPs. The program evaluation also included 30-minute

one-one one interviews with 25 individuals and 2 parents, as well as 45-minute focus

group interviews with 16 individuals. The NEC consultants spent two school days

observing special education programs and services across the district.

From this process, notable observations and recommendations were developed with the

inclusion of full explanations for each recommendation. This report provides school

administrators with the necessary information to move forward with enhancing the

existing special education programs and services within the district. Many positive

aspects and components were cited in the Commendations section. The

Recommendations section addressed issues to improve outcomes for students with

disabilities.

Appreciation is expressed to the support staff of the Office of Special Services and the

school-based staff for their assistance with scheduling school visits, class observations,

and interviews.

District-Wide Special Education Program Evaluationo Learning Center, Grade 2 o Learning Center,...

Documents

Transcript of District-Wide Special Education Program Evaluationo Learning Center, Grade 2 o Learning Center,...