BSPED FORUM NOTES: Inclusive Ed…What’s Ahead?

The Berkeley Special Education Parents Network (BSPED) sponsored a community forum with Superintendent Michele Lawrence. Special Education Director Ken Jacopetti and Gerald Herrick, Director of Pupil Support, BUSD’s 504 Coordinator and head of the Student Success Team (SST) also joined the Superintendent in answering questions.

More than 60 people attended the event, 16 of whom were introduced as BUSD staff. Board members Shirley Issel and Nancy Riddle were in the audience. The forum centered around questions submitted in advance by BSPED members, combined with a few questions from the audience. Veteran special education parents, Ann McDonald-Cacho and Beverly Libaire provided facilitation at the Forum.

Please remember these are notes on this particular forum: some issues, due to the very nature of the event, were not exhaustively discussed; in fact, many topics were touched on only lightly. The reader is asked not to view this as a complete discussion of the Special Education program, but rather as a summary of the meeting, held April 27, 2004.

To explain the background of some of the questions, Ann McDonald-Cacho wrote endnotes. Anywhere (BSPEDX) appears in the text, refer to the numbered note at the end of the article.

Superintendent Michele Lawrence answered the majority of the questions.

Some themes ran through nearly every answer:
1) A philosophy of looking at students is driving change within the district: Whole Child, All Children. The Superintendent explained that this meant looking at the whole needs of every child—academic, social/emotional, and physical—and providing appropriate services to the child accordingly. To the extent possible, special needs students would be in regular classrooms and services to help them succeed would be made available to them both within and outside of the classroom.
2) Inclusion is not a program—but a philosophy and culture, similar to diversity. There is no Director of Diversity in the district, because the philosophy of the organization is to encourage diversity. The same should be true of inclusion. All our children must be accepted everywhere.
3) This is a substantial change for the district, which is now “building the airplane while also flying it across the country” to use Lawrence’s metaphor. In other words, change must happen at a fast enough rate to take the district to its end goal, but not too fast that current students are left without programs.
4) Substantial change is being made, but “It is hard work.” [One of the Superintendent’s mantras on this evening.] Progress is more apparent in certain places than others, and much more needs to be done, but change is happening. Lawrence urged the audience to remain engaged and hopeful.
5) Funding for education is “at its worst point in the 32 years” of the Superintendent’s professional experience in public education. This impairs the district’s ability to make changes as swiftly as Lawrence would like. She forecast that budget woes would increase before they improved, and cautioned that unless significant economic improvement miraculously occurred in California, the next two years would see funding unable to keep up with cost increases, especially health care costs.
6) There is a long tradition within the district of not looking at the whole. At the school level, even at the central office level. This a problem from top to bottom.
7) The Superintendent plans to convene a large group of individuals to: study the entire district’s budget and operations; name the “essential ingredients” of quality education; and figure out how that could be funded in the current climate of fiscal conservatism at the state federal levels. This group would include members of the special ed community, and will begin its work next fall.

Studies of the Special Ed program:
A question arose concerning the Special Education Study 2003 of the department and consultant’s recommendations. [see http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/DI/departments/sped/sped_reports.html] The district also has a Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) (BSPED1) by the state, as well as a Fiscal Crisis Management Team (FCMAT) assessment, and the earlier Goldfinger report. So. Lawrence stated, there are documents telling the district where to go over the next period of time. The Superintendent noted the urgency on the part of special education parents to accomplish these changes, but noted that there needs to be the organizational capacity to make it happen [see point 3, airplane, above].

Lawsuits:
Lawrence said that “significant headway” has been made in reducing the number of active lawsuits against the district regarding special needs children.

Organizational Change:
Resources need to be built into schools so that children do not need to be labeled Special Ed to get the services they need. As that happens, teachers will be less likely to want to have children labeled Special Ed, which teachers may now feel is the only way to get services to the child.

One Model:
District staff and staff from seven Berkeley schools have visited the Elk Grove School District, which has successfully implemented a program based on their philosophy of inclusion and utilization of resources. Lawrence also mentioned that she liked the Hesperia model a little better. (BSPED2)

Regular ed teachers are being trained:
--So that they may more successfully teach special needs students in a regular classroom
--So the teacher has the confidence to accept those children into the classroom
--And are being sent to special ed conferences
Principals are being trained:
--To understand the principals of inclusion
--To understand how certain programs can support teachers with special needs students in the classroom
--To identify district resources to help, for example a SST handbook that is being created.

Promoting change:
A question was raised as to the necessity of an additional inclusive kindergarten classroom for fall and whether principals or sites could simply “opt out” of including disabled students in general ed, when “least restrictive environment” (LRE) is the law. Lawrence stated the district has not yet been “heavy-handed” in regard to teachers being part of the inclusion solution. “We are moving deliberately.” In the end, it will not be an option for teachers: inclusion will be everywhere. Lawrence could not state numbers of classrooms that will be ready next fall to accept special needs students, but said there would be more. Lawrence noted that working out the mechanics was an important step. This has certain ramifications for both the certificated and classified employees contract agreements. She noted that parents would need to be trained in how the new system should work as well, noting that there were already Site Council trainings, and this could be analogous.

Class Size:
One can’t take an already full classroom of 30-some students at a middle school and then just add 3 special needs students and expect success, noted Lawrence. This is a recipe for failure, and shows how “regular ed issues” like class size impact “special ed”: One must examine the district as a whole to solve the problems [another mantra].

Gaps in abilities:
One question from an audience member, regarding how inclusive education would work in practice, asked how well a child who read at the 2nd grade level could fare in Senior English. Wouldn’t a special day class (SDC) be more appropriate? Lawrence made two points: Even if there was a special class, it should still be titled Senior English. Second, there are large gaps in a given class already: a sophomore English class might have kids reading way below and way above grade level, so teaching a range of kids is usual in the district, and all teachers need to be able to do this (differentiated instruction). (BSPED3)

Remedial instruction:
One parent noted that successful remedial programs can bring a lifetime of success for children who participate. But comprehensive remediation is hard to find in the district. Lawrence said “This is the crux of many issues district-wide. We need to examine all our dollars and find effective ways to serve our children.”

Berkeley High Small Schools:
According to Lawrence, each small school at the high school will have a special ed teacher. These teachers may work in collaboration with a regular ed teacher, they may teach small groups of children. The idea is to use these teachers to best support the needs of the child within the framework of the classes offered at the high school. Director of Curriculum and Instruction Neil Smith and BHS Principal Jim Slemp are on board with this and it will be implemented at every small school.

Initial, annual, and triennial assessments:
Ken Jacopetti answered a question about the status of keeping up with deadlines for initial, annual, and triennial assessments. He gave no concrete numbers, but said that there has been drastic improvement in the first two categories, but that triennial assessment completion still lagged. He said log books are being distributed to teachers so they can better track triennial assessments. (BSPED4)

Bidding:
The written question was: We understand that a new contract was recently negotiated with the union that represents Instructional Aides (IAs) in the district. Most everyone seems to agree that IA “bidding” is contrary to appropriately serving the individualized needs of children who require this level of support, and doesn’t allow effective program planning or implementation. Has bidding been eliminated? (BSPED5)

Lawrence answered, “yes, and no.” That there was nothing in the contract with the BCCE [the union that represents instructional aides] regarding bidding. However, since the practice had become a de facto standard, eliminating it meant agreeing with the union as to what would replace it, which means determining what was the practice before bidding was instituted. She said she was hopeful that there would be an agreement on this issue. And that a process was in place where administrative final approval or denial of a “bid” could factor in.

Bullying:
Lawrence talked about the attention that bullying was receiving at staff development days and other venues. Questioners felt that children with disabilities had issues and coping mechanisms that were different or more complex than typical children, and that providing understanding of disability in the context of bullying, as well as in all areas, needed to be part of the school philosophy, training, operating procedures, and clear to students and staff. Lawrence did agree that Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), the federally-mandated Dept. of Ed Parent Training & Information Center (PTI) for our area, would be called upon for staff training and expertise.

Program Costs:
A question asked about Special Ed being “blamed” for the inability of the Berkeley Schools Excellence Project (BSEP) to meet its class-size goals, which arouses “those kids” vs. “our kids” discussions. Lawrence replied that every part of the district needs to be looked at for its ability to meet the goals of educating all the district’s children (see above for how that discussion might take place). She feels that there are inefficiencies in the current Special Ed structure, whether you gauge it educationally or economically. Families and some staff spoke up to explain that blaming “special ed” becomes synonymous to blaming children for their special needs—and is not seen as benignly targeting some abstract program.

Staffing Levels and IA roles:
Lawrence noted that some of the (40) Instructional Aides (IA) positions eliminated this spring were vacant positions. She foresaw using teachers and aides differently. The new philosophy of providing additional services to any student who needs them will remove the situation where an adult (an IA) is attached to a certain student for the entire day — a “Velcro aide” as Lawrence called this practice. Rather, the IAs (and special ed teachers) would provide additional services on an “as needed” basis. Lawrence saw situations such as IAs accompanying a student to lunch, when the student didn’t need help in the cafeteria, as both a waste of money and bothersome to the student. She said she had seen a situation where there were 5 additional IAs in a classroom [in addition to the teacher] which didn’t make sense.

Assistive Technology (AT) capacity, which led to utilizing outside resources in the community:
In response to a question about the availability of Assistive Technology in the district, and the lack of a qualified expert on staff to educate staff, students, and families as to what is available or how to successfully implement AT strategies for all students who could benefit, Lawrence admitted that capacity was not in the organization. She pointed out that for some time the district has done without a Director of Technology, and even functions like accounting and payroll are hampered by this budget-induced vacancy.

A parent mentioned better-utilizing services in the community that could likely provide additional AT support and/or funding. According to the parent, the district does not tap the wealth of expertise that is all around us. Not all services are free, but offer resources that students, because of their disability, should have access to.
1) Low-incidence funding through our SELPA for Assistive Technology (AT), or Augmentative & Alternative Communication (AAC), or other equipment needs. (BSPED6)
2) Medi-Cal equipment purchases for school-aged children who qualify medically and their families financially, and medically-eligible students once they turn 18.
3) California Children's Services (CCS), which provides physical and occupational therapy to children who qualify under certain medical criteria.
4) The Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) in Berkeley who provide expertise, services, equipment lending/trial opportunities, assessment, training workshops, consultation, AT and educational specialists, to benefit children, adults and school districts.
5) Learning opportunities from the Technology & Augmentative Communication Learning Enhancement (TACLE) program in the OUSD, for children with significant speech/language needs — modeled after The Bridge School (NPS) in Hillsborough.
6) Grants. The Universities.

A parent noted that many parents had lived in the Berkeley area for many years, and could provide advice to the district relative to community-based resources.

Lawrence noted that once the district put something in place via a grant [or even a free community service], there are other repercussions to the district because the district must then staff the administration of that grant/program, and it may create an expectation the services will continue after the grant expires.

Mental Health 3632 Funding:
Ken Jacopetti said that he believed it was likely that 3632 funding from the state would be cut. (BSPED7) The district is moving ahead “very proactively” with 3632 evaluations, as this is in the best interest of both the child and the district, according to Jacopetti. [Ed. Notes: In 1984, the Governor and Legislature enacted the Special Education Pupils Program, (AKA 3632) which, among other things, transferred responsibility for providing mental health services to special education pupils from school districts to county mental health departments. This legislation builds on the counties’ existing responsibilities and expertise in providing mental health treatment, and requires needed collaboration between schools and public mental health.]

SSTs or Student Success Teams:
Ken Jacopetti answered a question about SSTs — Student Success Teams (formerly Student Study Teams). (BSPED8)

Jacopetti explained revamping SSTs this way: If a child (any child) is struggling in school, a teacher may call in the SST and start a process to evaluate why/where the child is having trouble and what remedies/interventions might be tried to help the child in areas of concern. Interventions are then applied, data collected and outcomes evaluated. Interventions can then be modified or additional interventions applied. All SST decisions require monitoring. It is a three-level system, with the final step being a referral to Special Ed if necessary. (BSPED9)

Implementing SSTs in this fashion, the district believes, may contribute to fewer kids entering the Special Ed rolls. It could be win-win, in that kids are actually helped when they need help and the district might save money. A question remains if the district has, or can develop the capacity to pull off successful intervention to the extent that benefits hoped for, can be realized. (BSPED10)

Autism Rates in California:
In a response to the a question giving statistics about the rise of autism in California, Lawrence said simply that she hoped that the district would be better able to better serve autistic children within the district itself.

Communication Issues:
One staff member brought up the issue of communication: Was there adequate communication to teachers about this forum [from the district side, not the BSPED side]? How will inclusive message be brought to each site? What if the principal was not a big fan of inclusion? Lawrence noted that the $16 million in budget cuts over the last 3 years had taken out much of the central office, and that impacts the organization’s ability to communicate. Nonetheless, she said, improving internal communication was a crucial issue.

Transition Issues:
The transition of youth from school into the adult community was discussed by Ken Jacopetti. Community Options, which ran the district’s transition program is ending its work for the BUSD in July 2004. The district is developing its own program, through the North Region SELPA (of which Berkeley is a member), which will be ready by September 2004. Jacopetti expressed enthusiasm for the task, and said he and staff were excited about the opportunity. Some staff noted that they had not heard about this yet, and urged him to communicate fully and quickly with all Special Ed staff. Jacopetti noted this was a very recent development and more information would be forthcoming through principals to site staff. (BSPED11) (BSPED12)

High School Algebra Requirement:
A discussion of whether students who had not completed the high school algebra requirement might be allowed to participate in graduation ceremonies. Lawrence said this was a School Board decision, and that the current policy would not allow this, but there was time for the Board to discuss the question. (BSPED13)

History of BUSD programs—lessons learned and lost:
A participant pointed out that both parents and staff had seen a great number of plans for Special Ed in the BUSD through the years, some of which were successful programs. She wondered whether the district had the ability to remember what had worked in the past and what had not. (BSPED14)

There was a very brief discussion of how/whether progress is being made:
While some expressed seeing improvement, others clearly did not. While Lawrence’s positions and plans were clear, the feeling remained that parents would take a “wait-and-see” attitude, and carefully assess how successfully the plans would translate into education for their children. And, how effectively plans and positions will be communicated across the district. Lawrence repeated her assertion that while this was “hard work,” progress was being made, and urged parents to remain engaged and hopeful. BSPED moderators noted that the fact we are having these discussions with one another at all is a testament to one significant improvement that likely would never have occurred under previous administrations.

Meeting notes by Jay Nitschke jay@jaystoys.com. Thanks to Ann McDonald-Cacho for vital edits and the endnotes that follow. Get on the BSPED etree, one of the most informative I read, by emailing Ann at BSPED@mcads.com.

ADDITIONAL BSPED END NOTES – by Ann McDonald-Cacho, BSPED e-tree facilitator

(BSPED1) Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR)
State and federal law require the California Department of Education to monitor the implementation of categorical programs operated by local educational agencies (LEAs). This state oversight is accomplished in part by conducting on-site reviews. Each LEA is reviewed once every four years by state staff and local administrators trained to review one or more of these programs. The purpose of the review is to verify compliance with requirements of each categorical program, and to insure that program funds are spent to increase student performance.

(BSPED2) ELK GROVE and HESPERIA Models
Elk Grove has been refining their current “learning center” model for 14 years. In contrast to a small district like BUSD with declining enrollment, Elk Grove is growing by an elementary class per day (!) and currently serves 56,000 students. Their systems, data collection and processes are very tight by dire necessity. They call their model Collaborative Academic Support Team (CAST), with embedded assessment and applied levels of intervention when needed, which replaced a traditional “discrepancy model” before interventions were applied. The visitor presentation clarifies it is not a Special Education program; students at risk of failure, period, are targeted. The thinking goes that learning disabilities comprise the majority of special education referrals, so consequently, as a result of district restructuring efforts, Special Ed enrollment in Elk Grove dropped from 16% (which is very high according to national or state average) to 9% within one 7 year period. The presenter did qualify this drop by saying that some special ed referrals may have resulted from a large Spanish-speaking student population that was falling behind as a result of language difficulties. It is not as clear, from the visit, how or to the extend which students with disabilities other than LD, or those with moderate to significant disabilities are “included.” One principal-presenter told visitors he will not use the term inclusion (deriding it as a “Davis” or “college-town” model driven by intellectual parents), but instead uses the term “integration.” Students with more significant disabilities at his dual high school/middle school site are integrated in science, PE and electives, the rest of the time spent in Independent Life Skills (ILS) classrooms.

Hesperia modeled their system after Elk Grove and call it ExCEL. According to an article about recipients of the Schwab Collaborative Challenge Award grants, Hesperia’s basic approach was to blend special education services with general education. According to the article, “in a sense it was an outright effort to decrease the need for special education services, at least in the area of learning disabilities, by intervening before students fell behind.” And was “…motivated by some alarming research that suggested that as high as 60 percent of students traditionally identified as requiring special education services were simply needing a more prescriptive and intense kind of instruction. BSPED has a PDF file of this article and can send it to those that request it.

(BSPED3) It is BSPED’s understanding that a special day class at the high school level, even if called Senior English, still requires a “highly-qualified” teacher credentialed in that particular subject matter under No Child Left Behind, which may not be the case in BUSD SDC classes today [see http://www.berkeley.k12.ca.us/DI/departments/sped/sped_reports.html]. In addition, IEP goals and objectives need to be aligned with age-appropriate general education curriculum (with appropriate accommodations and/or modifications a student’s IEP requires), a goal the district states they are working to realize.

(BSPED4) Assessments were noted by administrators as a triage item in Sept. 2002 when Lawrence and Jacopetti last spoke at a BSPED forum. After the previous special education administration left in the summer of 2002, an estimated 200-300 assessments were found to be severely backlogged and out of timeline compliance. BSPED hears this situation has been dramatically cleaned up.

(BSPED5) Bidding” is a BUSD practice that has gone by the wayside in other districts. Instructional Aides (IAs), near the end of the school year,  “bid on” students they would prefer to serve the following year — rather than student(s) needs informing the selection of an IA (based on training, skills, etc.) for a particular student or classroom. “Bids” are granted based upon aide seniority.

(BSPED6) “Low incidence” refers to students with disabilities that comprise a low percentage of identified kids in special education — Deaf, blind, significant orthopedic impairment, and others — for which there is a fund in the N Region SELPA for these purchases.

(BSPED7) Following the forum, managing director for the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) tells BSPED that 3632 is being restructured at the state level, not cut. The CA Dept. of Education is having conversations about taking service delivery from the Dept. of Mental Health. It is likely that proposed restructuring could take years.

(BSPED8) This is actually Gerald Herrick, Director of Pupil Support Services’ department. SSTs previously involved special education, but now fall under the general education umbrella.

(BSPED9) Real intervention contrasts with an SST process that has been previously viewed as merely a gate-keeping system, with little intervention or monitoring. In that system, some students failed irreparably waiting to find help, until the discrepancies warranted significant intervention. And by that point, failure may have become so marked that the only level of intervention appropriate was special education services.

(BSPED10) See BSPED2 note on Elk Grove and Hesperia models.

(BSPED11) Latest word is that the North Region SELPA is looking to take over the transition programs of all districts in the SELPA, and that the program may be set up at Albany High School. A SELPA meeting around this issue will occur the week of May 10 and BSPED hopes to know more soon. Pending: our BSPED meeting on May 25 hopes to highlight this as a focus topic.

(BSPED12) Eligible students at age 16 (or 14 if appropriate) must have an Individualized Transition Plan (ITP), in addition to IEP goals and objectives, in order to provide the necessary supports, planning, and coordination with appropriate agencies and community supports in order to successfully transition into the adult world.

(BSPED13) BSPED is confused on this issue and is seeking definitive clarification from Administration or School Board. Two issues are present. A) Lawrence seemed to be referring to a future Board decision 5--866724754 To: Roia Ferrazares Subject: June 1 Event sponsorship From: Jay Nitschke Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:24:17 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613)
Hi all,

Trina Ostrander, director of the Berkeley Public Education Foundation, who you might remember speaking to us last January, has asked the PTA Council to endorse the June 1 event described below. As she is just asking for our endorsement of the event, with no financial implications, I see no reason not to proceed. She is also asking a wide range of other community organizations like the League of Women Voters, etc.

Next year, the Superintendent will be convening a 40-50 person panel to examine the whole of the district budget and operations, in an effort to make sure that our dollars are spent most effectively to educate children.

The Tuesday, June 1 event at 7:30 pm at Longfellow auditorium, will provide a glimpse into how that discussion has proceeded in other districts and states.

As noted below, that involves asking:
1.    What should our schools provide as enduring components of an excellent education?
2.    What does that cost?
3.    What do we currently have?
4.    What, then, must we resolve to provide, or agree to do without?

We can endorse this formally at this Friday's council meeting. If anyone has any questions, let me know.

Jay