This link provides a consultant report on special education services in Austin ISD but it is highly relevant to all of AISD as it addresses significant work needed to improve instructional practices and training in AISD to benefit all learners. Please review the attached. We’ve provided a summary and analysis:
Stetson Report Notes
The Stetson Report is a good effort to focus on AISD on where it is with respect to special education and where it needs to be. The report provides a cogent evaluation of the unfortunate state of education for students identified as qualifying for special education services in AISD and very solid recommendations about the need to improve in the areas of leadership (requiring a vision and plan for increasing the meaningful inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms), instruction, staffing, capacity building and family engagement. There were some very interesting findings, including that:
1. The district is not guided by a clear vision of services for students with disabilities.
2. Sped dept has not provided clarity and consistency regarding the district vision and expectations for students with disabilities, nor has it ensured that services are consistent from level to level and school to school, nor has there been active engagement and authentic collaboration with all other departments to ensure that actions are fully coordinated and that students with disabilities are represented in every function of the district.
3. The working relationship between Sped Dept and campus leaders is not characterized by trust, open communication and shared accountability for procedural safeguards and positive outcomes for students with disabilities.
4. All students do not receive tier one instruction within a system-wide Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS).
5. Higher expectations, research-based methodologies and greater instructional rigor have not been provided to close the current achievement gap for sped students and the general education classroom and the general curriculum have not been the reference points for decisionmaking for each student with a disability. Pullouts/segregated settings for students with disabilities have not been focused on a successful return to the general education classroom.
6. There is no objective, student-centered process for determining if personal supports are needed for each student, when and where they are needed and in what manner.
7. There is no systemic plan for delivery of professional development and mentoring to achieve quality services and supports.
8. There has been woefully insufficient family and community member engagement, which is necessary to meet the needs of students with disabilities and ensure their post-school success.
Notably “The performance of students with disabilities in Austin ISD did not meet minimum state standards for STAAR 3-8 in all subject areas nor did they meet minimum state standards for EOC passing rates in all four subject areas.” “The district has not met the minimum standards for students with disabilities in any of the four years reported.”
Austin ISD needs to demonstrate and speak clearly to a goal to meaningfully educate and include students with disabilities. The messaging needs to be clear: we are moving toward being a more inclusive district for ALL students. Principals, teachers and parents need to hear it and know (if in fact there is) a shift towards inclusion that will be happening in AISD. This has never been said and is not evidenced in the district, beyond some isolated examples. And the district needs to do the work!
Chapter One – Intro
13.3% of AISD students classified as qualifying for sped
Full program evaluation
Report recognizes the connection between general education instructional delivery system for all students as necessary to review sped services
Quality standards for services lists lens for evaluating leadership, yet these are not the case in AISD:
1. The district is not guided by a clear vision of services for students with disabilities.
2. Sped dept has not provided clarity and consistency regarding the district vision and expectations for students with disabilities, nor has it ensured that services are consistent from level to level and school to school, nor has there been active engagement and authentic collaboration with all other departments to ensure that actions are fully coordinated and that students with disabilities are represented in every function of the district.
3. The working relationship between Sped Dept and campus leaders is not characterized by trust, open communication and shared accountability for procedural safeguards and positive outcomes for students with disabilities.
4. All students do not receive tier one instruction within a system-wide Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS).
5. Higher expectations, research-based methodologies and greater instructional rigor have not been provided to close the current achievement gap for sped students and the general education classroom and the general curriculum have not been the reference points for decisionmaking for each student with a disability. Pullouts/segregated settings for students with disabilities have not been focused on a successful return to the general education classroom.
6. There is no objective, student-centered process for determining if personal supports are needed for each student, when and where they are needed and in what manner.
7. There is no systemic plan for delivery of professional development and mentoring to achieve quality services and supports.
8. There has been woefully insufficient family and community member engagement, which is necessary to meet the needs of students with disabilities and ensure their post-school success.
Snapshot of Sped Services
“The performance of students with disabilities in Austin ISD did not meet minimum state standards for STAAR 3-8 in all subject areas nor did they meet minimum state standards for EOC passing rates in all four subject areas.”
“The district has not met the minimum standards for students with disabilities in any of the four years reported.”
Chapter Two – Leadership
The report notes, “A positive, clear, and consistent message regarding services for students with disabilities as “our students–not your students or my students,” including equal membership in the school community, must be articulated by the superintendent, administrators over general education and special education, and by each principal.” This has not been the case. While the report states that the superintendent has expressed support for shared ownership for all students and for inclusive practices, we are completely unaware of this with respect to inclusion for students with disabilities in general education settings. We would ask the researchers to share any evidence of the superintendent expressing support for AISD including students with disabilities in general education settings. Teachers in AISD report no required trainings for teachers to include students with disabilities for at least the last 12 years and no expression to principals that AISD desires to include students with disabilities in general education settings. It is heartening to see that 97% of principals in AISD that were surveyed indicated that general education students benefit when special education students are in the same classroom. The report recommended that, “When interviewing applicants for leadership or instructional position, include questions regarding each applicant’s philosophy and approach to inclusive practices and the contributions they might make to support the district’s mission,” indicating that is not already the case in AISD. The report shows the consensus that sped services are not consistent across the district.
Recommendations
Great list demonstrates need to better elaborate and share a vision for inclusion in AISD and train teachers to do it, with cross-departmental ownership of curriculum development emphasized.
Findings
No common vision for educating students with disabilities!
No consistent delivery of services.
Inconsistent communication from Sped Dept highlighted.
Chapter Three – Instruction
Findings
The report states that evaluating campuses for solid MTSS is essential to the quality and effectiveness of instructional services, etc., found that: “Strong Tier One instruction was not in evidence in the majority of the 67 Austin ISD classrooms visited. Whole group instruction, limited use of scaffolds, and the same instructional activity for every student were most frequently in evidence. Small group instruction was observed in only five classrooms across the sixty-seven classrooms visited. There was also minimal evidence of visual aids, manipulatives, anchor charts, or scaffolding strategies with most instruction provided using overhead display technology with a visual representation of the instructional task. … The current MTSS process is not fully implemented and is inconsistent across schools.”
Recommendations
AISD needs to greatly improve instruction for all students and it must do so led by the Curriculum Dept. assisted by the Sped Dept. “At a minimum, every educator should be skilled in differentiating instruction, using scaffolds for learning, flexible grouping, attention to academic learning time, strong and positive behavioral support strategies. If not present in every classroom, opportunities for learning are likely inequitable.” “In addition, the five-year, longitudinal of performance of students with disabilities in Austin ISD validate the need for an increased focus on improving delivery of instructional and behavioral support services to this student population. The following is an excerpt from the Comparison Study conducted for Austin ISD regarding performance scores for students with disabilities (Appendix A). These data validate the need to review current instructional practices for all students and conduct a second analysis of current instructional practices in Austin ISD’s ‘pull-out’ classrooms serving students with disabilities.”
Findings
“The majority of students receiving in-class support within the general education setting were working on grade-level standards however, this was not observed within the special education self-contained classrooms. Instead, students were given “free play” or working with non-curricular activities such as blocks with little direct instruction. Overall, there was a lack of learner objectives linked to the curriculum and/or no alignment of activities to an alternate curriculum based on functional goals.” This finding clearly demonstrates WHY we need to do inclusion.
“Perhaps the first task in closing the achievement gap in our schools is to critically look at the extent to which high expectations and on-grade level standards are available to students with disabilities, and other special population students. It was not clear what curriculum is being utilized within the special education classrooms in Austin ISD. Too often, schools are quick to select alternative curricula for students who could participate in and benefit from strong curricular content.”
“observations of instructional practices also provided evidence that the use of IEP determined, student-specific instructional accommodations and curricular modifications is minimal at 22%. This contrasts with the survey results in which 78% of the faculty reported that they provide student accommodations. … Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the faculty survey respondents indicated that instruction is modified for students as specified in the IEP. In contrast, observations did not yield strong evidence of modified instruction when it appeared to be appropriate. Observations in general education classrooms with one or more students with IEPs yielded only one instance of modified student work and that was a worksheet.”
Recommendations
District-wide priority for implementation of curriculum for sped needed. “Continue to connect best practices for students with disabilities with best practices for all students such as: multilevel instruction, flexible grouping, use of instructional technology, Evaluation of Services for Students with Disabilities Austin Independent School District 30 activity-based learning, peer tutoring models and positive behavioral supports. Include special and general educators in training regarding the models of instructional delivery. Increase the awareness, knowledge and skills of all teachers in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) so they may design and implement lessons using multiple means of presentation, action and expression, and multiple means of student engagement.”
Chapter Four – Staffing
Findings
AISD spends a lot of money inefficiently, largely relying on the proximity of adults (primarily TAs) in lieu of needed improvements in the instructional practices.
Recommendations
AISD needs to have a clear and equitable staffing formula and to improve its instructional practices, largely in general education settings.
Chapter Five – Capacity Building
Findings
Districtwide training is insufficient but must be improved.
Recommendations
“The Curriculum and Instruction and Special Education departments should co-plan and co-deliver sessions designed to increase the use of solid Tier 1 strategies, differentiated instruction, multilevel instruction, schoolwide behavioral support strategies, scaffolding techniques, and instructional accommodations to all faculty. … The cost and time invested in professional development does not yield improvement in practice unless it is accompanied by skilled instructional coaching.”
Chapter Six – Family Engagement
Findings
Demonstrate that parents are largely aware that AISD is not adequately, properly serving students with disabilities as required by IDEA and that there is much work to be done.
Recommendations
Direct the district to do much more work around the critical work of parent engagement.