special education and struggling students opportunity review · academic achievement of struggling...

Polk County Public Schools

Special Education and Struggling Students

Opportunity Review

Fall 2019

Prepared by District Management Group

2

Special Education and Struggling Students Opportunities Review Polk County Public Schools

Introduction

The District Management Group (DMGroup) conducted a Special Education and Struggling Students

Opportunities Review on behalf of Polk County Public Schools. The review focuses on raising the

academic achievement of struggling students with and without special needs, improving and

expanding social, emotional and behavioral supports and on improving the cost-effective use of

limited financial resources. The study is conducted under the framework of the continuous

improvement model. It does not try to determine what is good or bad, but rather creates a road map

to help move a district to the next level of performance. This process acknowledges that all systems

can improve and that opportunities for improvement are built upon the district’s current strengths,

history, culture, structure, and resources.

The review compares current practice in the district to best practices drawn from similar districts

around the country and extensive published research. It also incorporates a number of well-tested

analytical tools. In all cases, the evaluation recognizes that increasing student achievement, meeting

the social and emotional needs of students, managing costs, and respecting children, parents, and staff

are equally important. Addressing one, while ignoring the others, is not an option.

The Opportunities Review also respects the reality that school systems are complex organizations

tasked with a multitude of expectations, unfunded mandates, priorities, and responsibilities. To that

end, only a small number of high-potential, high-impact, and high-leverage opportunities are

identified. A short, targeted plan is more beneficial than a long laundry list of observations, options,

and possible actions.

The research includes extensive in-person interviews, online surveys, a deep look at hard data,

classroom visits, benchmarking against best practices and like communities, and a review of existing

reports and district documents.

3

Commendations

While Polk County Public Schools has many aspects worthy of commendation, this is a short list of the

commendations that were particularly strong.

1. The district has created a strong culture of relationships between students and staff.

Relationships between students and staff appeared to be strong across the district. This was

demonstrated by teachers and staff consistently using culturally responsive language and

positively interacting with students inside and outside the classroom. This observation was

reinforced by comments shared by students and families.

2. Teachers have access to a variety of resources to support students.

Classrooms appeared to be well resourced across the district. Teachers productively used a variety

of technologies (Smartboards, Classlink, podcasts, etc.) in their instruction and appeared to have

ample supplies to conduct a variety of activities in the classroom to meet student needs.

Additionally, teachers shared that they appreciated the district-created curriculum maps,

particularly for the elementary grades. Staff noted that the curriculum maps provide expert,

standard-aligned guidance while also allowing for flexibility for teachers to customize lessons to

meet the needs of students of varying ability levels.

3. District data systems are robust, and staff are well-trained on how to use data.

Staff across multiple roles commented on the accessibility and usefulness of district data systems.

Staff reported that the district’s data systems are robust, and staff have been well trained to use

data to better identify and track students who struggle. This has also resulted in the district being

increasingly effective at identifying students who are struggling, especially at the elementary level.

4. The district has dedicated significant resources to teacher coaching and

development.

At the district level, the training, development, and coaching provided to staff to better support

students who struggle is productive and appreciated. At the school level, multiple staff members

commented on the helpfulness and impact of strategies shared by ESOL staff and coaches to

support Tier I instruction. Staff are generally open to and benefit from coaching support and often

share that “I wish I had called for help sooner!”

5. The ESE department has improved internal and external collaboration.

Internally, staff noted an improvement in collaboration across ESE service and functional areas.

Specifically, staff who work at multiple schools explained how much easier it is to coordinate

services across departments, and that ESE divisions meet with each other more frequently to align

efforts. Externally, parents and families appreciate the ESE Advisory Council and the

communication channel with the district it has created.

4

Opportunities

Polk County Public Schools has many areas of strength to build on. Building upon these strengths and

recognizing that all organizations can improve continuously, this Special Education and Struggling

Students Opportunities Review has identified a small number of high leverage areas specifically for

raising student achievement, meeting the social and emotional needs of children, and managing costs.

Opportunity 1: Create a stronger team approach to addressing and

supporting challenging student behaviors.

Many staff members expressed concern and frustration with problematic student behaviors in the

district, especially at the elementary level. Staff noted that procedures and training to deal with

student problematic behaviors vary considerably across the district, leaving many staff members

overwhelmed and burned out. They also shared that data on student behaviors is underutilized.

Additionally, many staff expressed the opinion that general education teachers could benefit from an

improved set of skills in working with students to provide more effective Tier I/II behavior supports.

Currently, many general education teachers often reach out to ESE district staff as a “solution” instead

of implementing effective classroom interventions.

Key quotes about student behavior from school- and district-based staff include:

• “We’ve seen that the classroom is really challenging to control, a lot of kids are getting hurt.”

• “The biggest challenge in the district is behavior. Procedures for handling it vary across the

district.”

• “Schools say: ‘Get these kids out’, but there is nowhere to send them. There isn’t consistent

behavior messaging and training across the district.”

• “Data does not drive decisions when it comes to discipline.”

• “Teachers feel that ESE and 504s are outside of their ‘role’ and then they don’t implement

IEPs with fidelity. They lose sight of working together as a team.”

• “Teachers need a better skill set to really succeed with students today.”

• “I don’t know if we have a true continuum of services. Kids are not prepared for gen ed and to

be successful.”

• “There is a disconnect between gen ed and ESE staff when it comes to serving students who

struggle and a missed opportunity for greater collaboration.”

There are many roles that are essential in supporting the social-emotional and behavioral needs of

students. Creating a system that ensures that students are adequately supported requires coordinating

these roles in a cohesive way and developing a model that is proactive rather than reactive. A proactive

approach is comprised of four key elements:

5

• Train General Education Teachers: General education teachers must play a central role

by establishing behavior norms in the classroom and reinforcing behavioral expectations.

• Utilize Behavioral Expertise: Schools must layer on behavioral expertise for students with

more intense behavioral issues. Experts should develop behavior plans for general education

staff which identify and avoid student triggers.

• Align Efforts Across Roles: The district must create a unified effort between behaviorists,

social-emotional staff, general education teachers, and any special education or

paraprofessional staff supporting the students. Developing clear communication plans and

developing a unified approach can support both students and staff.

• Establish Clear Roles and Responsibilities: The district must establish clear roles and

responsibilities between social/emotional and behavioral staff. Developing clear guidelines for

when and how to utilize these resources can help increase social-emotional and behavioral

staff’s availability to support students, while also alleviating confusion for different team

players within the school.

Opportunity 1 - Potential Action Steps:

Helping to manage challenging behavior will take a multi-pronged approach addressing both basic

needs and more significant challenges.

1a. Help classroom teachers develop the skills and mindset to address Tier I/II

behaviors. Classroom teachers would benefit from continued development on structured classroom

routines and behavior management techniques, such as building predictable classroom routines,

adding more structure to lessons, and training on basic de-escalation techniques. These very valuable

skills are not often taught to teachers in many teacher preparation programs.

Many districts across the country are now providing training and support to classroom teachers in this

area, and some important lessons on effectively building this capacity have been learned, including:

• The district should consider identifying a few specific areas and strategies in which to train

staff. Building a few key skills at a time is better than spreading the effort too thin.

• The “just-right” approach to building capacity is to provide a mix of modalities. The skill

building should downplay traditional “sit and get” professional development sessions and

instead leverage existing district coaches and other staff that have these skills.

• Creating online tools such as videos and sample "how to" documents can reinforce the skill

building as well.

Through these learning opportunities, the district can help teachers and schools more effectively

clarify whole school and class-wide expectations, routines, positive encouragement and thoughtful

student-centered discipline practices. The general education teacher must play a central role in

executing behavioral supports in the core classroom by establishing behavioral norms, teaching

6

correct behaviors through practice, monitoring student progress, and correcting and reinforcing

behavioral expectations. As an example, it is often important to first present students with clear and

specific examples of appropriate behavior in order to build a shared understanding of behavioral

expectations. Students should also be provided with opportunities to practice the appropriate

behavior with positive reinforcement, or redirections if needed.

In addition to these universal practices, some students with behavioral challenges will need more.

Detailed data can help identify the triggers of problematic behavior and skilled experts can advise both

students and teachers how to avoid the triggers, see the telltale warning signs and develop coping

mechanisms. These are critical steps that focus on preventing behavioral challenges before they

happen and creating skills that build student independence that will be especially helpful after

graduation.

1b. Create teams with specialized expertise to address and support Tier II/III behaviors.

Schools need access to experts who are trained in identifying, supporting, and reducing difficult

behaviors. Given this need, the district can further clarify a district-wide approach to how staff with

expertise in supporting difficult behaviors are deployed and best utilized in the schools.

District leaders recognize that there has been an increase in highly disruptive and intense student

behaviors and that such behaviors are negatively impacting students, staff, and schools. To address

this challenge, senior district leaders are working with the School Board to develop a comprehensive

School Discipline and Student Behavior Response Plan. District leaders have codified a clear theory of

action and set of goals to guide the district’s work related to discipline and student behavior:

Theory of Action

A multi-tiered system of support for behavior will result in…

• A safe and caring school environment

• Strengthened conditions for student learning

• An excellent school experience for all stakeholders

District Goals

1. Improve the district’s immediate and systematic response

2. Provide systems to build capacity at the school level

3. Expand a districtwide continuum of behavioral and mental health supports and

placements

District leaders have also proposed key activities to achieve these goals, including:

1. Provide a tiered system of supports that provides teachers more training with Marzano’s Conditions of Learning

2. Expansion of regional response personnel that includes:

• Board Certified Behavior Analyst (contracted)

• Behavior Specialist (new position)

7

• Mental Health Facilitator

• Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support TRST (new position)

• School Psychologist

• School Social Worker

3. Creation of systematic protocols for schools to request support

4. Continuation and/or expansion of contracted services from:

• Winter Haven Behavioral Health

• Alternative Behavior Concept

• INVO Healthcare Associates

5. Creation of INVO Multidisciplinary Program to Address Childhood Trauma (IMPACT) units to support mental health diagnoses, intense behavioral challenges, and student social emotional needs

6. Strengthen the district’s continuum of support at the highest level with more restrictive placement options

Additionally, the district has made a significant investment in talented staff with the needed skills to

address challenging behaviors. Roughly twelve percent, or nearly 300 FTE (including equivalent FTE

from external service providers), of the district’s special education and student support positions

(highlighted on the next page) are roles that are closely aligned to directly supporting students’ social,

emotional, and behavioral needs or supporting teachers who can address students’ social, emotional,

and behavioral needs.

Staff that can support students with social, emotional and behavioral needs have diverse training and

work across a wide range of departments. This can lead to less coordinated efforts. Bringing all these

roles and staff together under unified leadership can increase their impact and improve the quality of

their work life as well.

While the current level of staff with specialized expertise in behavior management is typical given the

growing needs of students, the district could consider replacing ESE staff that leave the district with

staff with expertise in behavior management and expanding the district’s centralized behavior team.

8

Table 1. Select ESE and Support Service Roles, 2019-2020

Role FTE

Count

Role

FTE

Count

Paraprofessional 774 Occupational Therapist*** 22

VE Teacher (ESE Teacher) 628 Mental Health Facilitator 21

Speech and Language Pathologist* 153 Nurse 17

Reading Coach 106 Adaptive PE 11

Gifted Teacher 92 Physical Therapist 11

Elementary Counselor 66 Senior Manager 11

ESE Teacher (PK) 66 Vision Impaired Teacher 10

LEA Facilitator 64 Hearing Impaired Teacher 9

Middle/Junior Counselor 50 RN - Prevent Ed Tech 6

School Psychologist 47 Resource Teacher 5

ESOL Teacher 46 Behavior Specialist**** 24

Teacher Resource Specialist Trainer 33 ESE District-Based Coach***** 5

School Social Worker 30 PBIS Facilitator 4

Staffing Specialist 23 Senior Coordinator 2

Mental Health Counselor** 50 - -

Highlighted roles closely align to directly supporting students’ social, emotional, and behavioral needs

*Includes equivalent of 31 SLPs from external service provider

**Includes equivalent of 11 OTs from external service provider

***Includes equivalent of 28 mental health counselors from external service provider

****Includes equivalent of 20 behavior specialists from external service provider

*****Includes equivalent of 1 ESE coach from external service provider

1c. Expand mental health counseling, behavioral support, and social work services by

leveraging the impact of current staff, while also prioritizing reducing staff stress. In

order to help students succeed in life, schools need to address the counseling and mental health needs

of kids with as much gusto and priority as their academic needs. This may be done despite tight

budgets by:

• Clarifying and prioritizing what is asked of staff with specialized skills.

• Streamlining meetings and paperwork.

• Considering expanding small group supports where appropriate.

• Augmenting current staff efforts by expanding the use of community partners.

Currently many of the staff with specialized skills are asked to do many tasks that reduce their ability

to work directly with students. This does not maximize their impact, nor does it create as fulfilling

work. Often the myriad of tasks asked of staff have evolved over time rather than been proactively

planned, discussed, debated or prioritized. Such planning would benefit students and staff alike.

More generally, supporting children with behavioral needs is most effective through a unified team

effort. There should also be a tight connection between behavioral supports and social-emotional

supports. Given the significant social and emotional needs of students, social and emotional staff

9

(psychologists, social workers, counselors, guidance staff, outside partners, and others) have many

demands on their time. Many districts are understaffed in this area. Creating a team approach should

assign clear roles and responsibilities, based not just on role or title but on individual strengths,

training and aptitude.

Time with Students:

Counseling Roles

Figure 1. Percent of time spent with students for elementary and middle/junior counselors

Elementary counselors reported spending, on average, 14 percent of their day with students, with a

range reporting spending 57 percent of their day at the high end and the lowest reporting not spending

any time with students. By comparison, middle/junior counselors reported spending, on average, 21

percent of their day with students, with a range of one counselor spending 57 percent of their time

with students at the high end and one counselor reporting spending 1 percent of their time with

students on the low end.

This large variance in time spent with students reflects the many ways a counelsor spends their time,

including a high percentage of their time on assigned school duties, IEP-related paperwork and non

IEP-related paperwork. Table 2 (next page) shows these responsibitlies in more detail.

10

Table 2. Elementary & Middle/Junior Counselor Activities

Elementary Middle/Junior

Activity Average Time per

Week per FTE

% Time

Spent

Average Time per

Week per FTE

%

Time

Spent

Counseling 1h 0m 5% 5h 10m 12%

Crisis intervention 0h 52m 2% 2h 31m 6%

Small group counseling 0h 36m 2% 0h 34m 2%

Behavior intervention 2h 2m 5% 0h 21m 1%

Total Direct Service 5h 30m 14% 8h 37m 21%

Attend meeting (other than IEP) 3h 38m 9% 2h 35m 6%

Paperwork (other than IEP) 3h 0m 8% 4h 8m 10%

Total Paperwork/Meeting (non-IEP) 6h 38m 17% 6h 43m 16%

Attend meeting (IEP) 1h 32m 4% 0h 7m 0%

Paperwork (IEP) 0h 49m 2% 0h 51m 2%

Test scoring/interpretation 0h 14m 1% 0h 20m 1%

Assessment/testing 1h 19m 3% 0h 16m 1%

Total IEP-Related Services 3h 54m 10% 1h 34m 4%

Collaboration with colleagues 2h 50m 7% 3h 35m 9%

Planning/materials preparation 1h 35m 4% 2h 33m 6%

Agency coordination of supports and services 0h 52m 2% 0h 41m 2%

Total Planning and Collaboration 5h 17m 13% 6h 49m 17%

Assigned school duties 5h 36m 14% 4h 25m 11%

MTSS/Referral Coordination 5h 12m 13% - -

Personal lunch 1h 21m 4% 1h 29m 4%

Parent communication 1h 36m 4% 5h 46m 15%

PBIS Activities 0h 45m 2% - -

Student observation 0h 39m 2% 0h 13m 1%

Scheduling - - 1h 38m 4%

Total Other 15h 9m 39% 13h 31m 35%

Total under-reported time* 2h 6m 5% 1h 24m 8%

*Under-reported time represents the amount of time below the position’s standard 38.75 hour work week that staff did not submit time for.

Middle/junior counselors reported spending less time on IEP-related activities, but a comparable

percent of their time on other activities when compared to elementary counselors. This suggest that at

the elementary level, counselors are more routinely incorporated into IEP-related activities but less so

at the middle school and junior high level.

Additionally, counselors at all levels reported spending over 11 percent of their time performing school

duties (or approximately one hour a day). This likely impacts the counselor’s ability to provide regular

and frequent services to students. Reassigning school duties and outlining clear guidelines for how

counselors spend their time can help prevent individuals from being pulled for school duties and thus

allow counselors support students more often. Doing so can help staff play to their strengths, lead to a

11

higher level of job satisfaction, increase staff retention and improve student outcomes, all in a cost

effective manner.

Mental Health Roles

The district employs mental health facilitators, mental health counselors, and social workers to

support students’ mental health, counseling, and behavioral needs. While it is clear each role offers a

unique skill set within the social, emotional, and behavioral support ecosystem, the activities of all

three roles were combined due to the similarity of reported activities across all three roles.

Figure 2. Percent of time spent with students for mental health counselors, facilitators and social

workers – Combined

On average, mental health counselors, mental health facilitators, and social workers reported

spending 20 percent of their time directly with students. The highest reported percentage time spent

with students was 48 percent, which was reported by a social worker. Several individuals,

predominantly social workers, reported spending no time directly with students, suggesting that there

is a large variance in how social workers spend their time across the district. As Polk County strives to

expand mental health counseling, behavioral support and social work services, the district may

consider further evaluating and providing guidance regarding the role social workers play in

supporting students.

12

Table 3. Mental health counselors, facilitators and social workers - Combined

Activity Average Time per

Week per FTE

% Time

Spent

Therapy with students 4h 8m 11%

Counseling 1h 39m 4%

Crisis management/intervention 0h 42m 2%

Student instruction or support 0h 40m 2%

Crisis intervention 0h 11m 1%

Total Direct Service 7h 25m 20%

Attend meeting (other than IEP) 1h 54m 5%

Paperwork (other than IEP) 1h 53m 5%

Paperwork (other than IEP/504) 1h 45m 5%

Attend meeting (other than IEP/504) 1h 14m 3%

Total Paperwork/Meeting (non-IEP) 6h 46m 18%

Assessment/testing 1h 4m 3%

Paperwork (IEP) 0h 15m 1%

Test scoring/interpretation 0h 14m 1%

Total IEP-Related Services 1h 33m 5%

Collaboration with colleagues (email, phone) 5h 7m 13%

Planning/materials preparation 2h 42m 7%

Agency coordination of supports and services 1h 21m 4%

Total Planning and Collaboration 9h 10m 24%

Travel 2h 22m 6%

Parent communication (email, phone) 2h 21m 6%

Monitor school attendance 2h 6m 5%

Personal lunch 1h 57m 5%

Case management 1h 14m 3%

Professional development (receiving) 0h 30m 1%

Reflection/Debrief with teacher (out of class) 0h 20m 1%

Classroom Observation (in class) 0h 14m 1%

Professional development (giving) 0h 11m 1%

Total Other 11h 15m 29%

Total under-reported time* 1h 19m 3%


Mental health counselors, mental health facilitators, and social workers spend roughly 20 percent of

their time directly supporting students, predominantly through therapy with students. These three

roles also reported spending eighteen percent of their time (or roughly seven hours a week) on non-

IEP paperwork and meetings. While it is not possible to eliminate paperwork and meetings altogether,

simplifying paperwork collection, reducing meetings to essential staff members and creating clear

roles for reporting can greatly simplify the workload faced by staff.

13

Student Group Size:

Counseling Roles

Figure 3. Reported number of students per group for elementary and middle/junior counselors

Counselors at all levels reported conducting direct student support with varying numbers of students.

Increasing counseling group size beyond one-on-one, when appropriate, can greatly improve the

impact of a school counselor and, within limits, greatly improve a counselor’s ability to reach a great

number of students without dramatically increasing costs.

Mental Health Roles

Figure 4. Reported number of students per group for mental health counselors, facilitators and

social workers

Note: 10 percent of individuals reported a group size of 0 students.

14

Across all three roles there were a range of group sizes when directly supporting students. Like

elementary and middle/junior counselors, mental health counselors, mental health facilitators, and

social workers may consider expanding the number of students they work with at any given time.

Doing so can increase the number of students with access to regular and frequent social, emotional,

and mental health supports.

Community Partners:

After the district has taken steps to maximize the impact of current staff with specialized skills, it may

consider augmenting the staff's efforts by expanding the use of community partners such as mental

health counseling services, substance abuse centers, and private practice clinicians and social workers.

Often these services can be funded by student insurance or subsidized by nonprofit organizations.

1d. Streamline meetings and paperwork to increase time staff can spend with students.

Meetings, paperwork, and compliance are necessary and important part of the job for many special

education and support staff, as is directly working with children. Both are important, but every minute

that meetings and paperwork can be streamlined is an extra minute available to help a student in

need. Given this, reducing and streamlining paperwork and meetings is a cost-effective way to allow

staff to better support students, increase staff morale and improve student outcomes.

In general, staff reported notably high levels of collaboration with colleagues across positions in the

district. While collaboration can be a highly effective way to share best practice, align departments and

support students who struggle in a cost-effective manner, the district may consider reviewing how

staff currently collaborate to ensure that time is impactful and well-spent.

15

Opportunity 2: Improve trust and goodwill through more frequent

communication and explanations of decisions.

Opportunity 2a. Provide more frequent and more detailed information to staff and

families related to the "why" not just the "what" of key decisions. Many staff and families

shared frustration over a perceived lack of clear, transparent communication from the district,

resulting in a low level of trust with the district among staff and families. Many families expressed the

opinion that they do not have easy and transparent access to information about their child and the

services their child receives, leading many families of students who struggle to feel as if the district is

withholding or hiding information about services.

Key quotes about district communication and decisions include:

• “There is a disconnect between what we provide and what parents have access to. We

provide a lot of resources, but parents don’t take advantage of them. We need a seamless

transition between students being identified and providing those services.”

• “Making sure your student receives the services they need is a nightmare.”

• “The district gets extra funding because of my child—and all I get is a lack of

transparency in return.”

• “We need to be able to point parents in the right direction the first time they ask about

services, not confuse them.”

• “Communication needs to be cleaned up and services made more obvious.”

• “Top down communication doesn’t always get to where it needs to go, which leaves a lot

of staff confused.”

Existing external family communication (table on next page) comes in a variety of forms and appears

to primarily focus on informing parents and families about ESE-related events in the district. Internal

staff communication also leverages multiple formats, including a recently started weekly email to

principals from the Deputy Superintendent. This district does value effective communication and has

taken steps to improve communication, but staff and families report more is needed.

16

Table 4. District ESE Communication, 2019-2020

ESE Department –

External Family Communication ESE Department –

Internal Staff

Communication ESE Department

Communication Topics*

PR Department

Communication Support**

• ESE School Support

• Polk ESE Symposium

• Parent Advisory meetings

• Fall Parent Workshops

• Autism Support Group

meetings

• Special Olympics

• ChildFind Screening- Dates and

Locations

• ESE Parent Survey

• Diploma Deferral Letter

• Private School Letter

• Extended School Year

• Revising district’s webpages

dedicated to ESE-related topics

• Developing content

• Highlighting ESE-related

topics, achievements, programs,

students and educators

• Assisting with promoting ESE

Advisory Council’s meetings

• Assisting with promotional

efforts for Polk Symposium on

Special Education

• Weekly email from the

Deputy Superintendent

to all principals

• ESE department

communicates via email,

outlook calendar

invitations, and district

website

*Forms of communication include social media postings, phone calls, emails, district website updates, and/or flyers

**Forms of communication include flyer, event booklet, automated telephone calls, emails, media releases, story on the district

website, social media posts, and promotional videos

Opportunity 2a - Potential Action Steps:

Provide more background and rationale when communicating with stakeholders,

including in written communication. Communication in any large and geographically dispersed

organization is a challenge. The district can consider improving the ways it currently communicates

with stakeholders about ESE services and policies by explaining key decisions and providing clear

rationale for these decisions. Stakeholders want to know why a decision was made, not just what the

decision is.

The district can also consider sharing more regular communication, such as a monthly newsletter,

with families and staff that can build awareness and create a catalog of information for stakeholders to

refer to over time. It is often the case in districts that if one parent or staff member has a question then

other parents or staff have the same or similar questions. Creating a more extensive library of online

answers could be helpful, especially if they include the why as well as the what.

Create a senior level ESE Liaison position. The district should build on the existing

communication mediums that allow for two-way communication with staff and families, such as the

ESE Advisory Board. For example, creating a senior level ESE Liaison or ESE Ombudsman position

could create a stronger level of two-way communication with parents and staff. The purpose of this

position would be to answer questions or direct family and staff questions about ESE topics to

someone who can. They would also monitor that answers were received and help build district

communications systems, such as centrally posted FAQ documents.

17

Opportunity 2b. Provide greater clarity regarding rationale for staffing and resource

allocation practices. Both classroom teachers as well as school administrators highlighted

frustration and confusion concerning how positions are allocated and used across the district.

Key quotes about resource allocation include:

• “There is an inequitable access to resources across the district.”

• “The way to get resources is to push, push, push. You can’t wait for the process because

you don’t know where it (the application) is in the process.”

• “The district needs to be better at transparency. You can get a lot of roles or paras

dropped with no previous discussion. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”

Similar to other aspects of communication, district leaders are thoughtful and have built a system that

reasonably and equitably allocates resources, but this is not the perception.

Opportunity 2b - Potential Action Steps:

Develop more precise guidelines that address workload, level, and type of student need,

not just caseload. Determining how many staff members are needed in each school and what types

of roles are needed is a complex task. Some districts have built more precise and transparent

approaches to allocating staff to schools driven by need and equity. The district could build a cross-

functional team to set position-specific staffing guidelines for student support positions. This would

dovetail well with better managing how staff use their time as well.

18

Opportunity 3: Improve consistency of support services written into

IEPs and the delivery of IEP services.

Staff and families shared that there is an inconsistency in ensuring that students get what they need

due to different expectations at different schools and in different regions. This results in similar

students having very different IEPs. Once written, there is also a perceived lack of consistent

implementation of IEPs across the district. This is due in part because many ESE staff explained that

it is not uncommon for them to be pulled for classroom coverage or to support student behaviors,

which then reduces their service time with students.

Key quotes about consistency of services include:

• “There are people running IEP meetings that don’t know what they’re doing. There are also a

lot of poorly written IEPs.”

• “We’re constantly training people on how to write IEPs due to the turnover and vacancies. As

a result, there isn’t the consistency across schools that we want.”

• “Teachers aren’t well trained on how to provide services to students. As a result, IEPs aren’t

always implemented with fidelity.”

• “We need to improve the IEP process. What happens is that IEPs get loaded up with minutes

of support or cut down on minutes because they can’t realistically be supported.”

• “After so many times, I just can’t trust that the district will implement my child’s IEP

properly.”

Figure 5. Number of students referred for IEP testing by grade, 2018-2019

Initial IEPs are generated in the early elementary years, especially in grades 1 and 3.

19

Figure 6. IEP referral and eligibility rates by grade, 2018-2019

Roughly 30 percent of students referred for testing in Kindergarten and 1st grade were found eligible for

a full IEP during the 2018-2019 school year. This may suggest that a high number of students are

inappropriately referred for testing in these grades and staff are spending a significant amount of time

testing students. Additionally, roughly 40 percent of students tested were found eligible for just speech

and language (SLP) services in Kindergarten and 1st grade.


3a. Strengthen the consistency of services written into IEPs and timely service delivery

via a more robust oversight function.

It is vital that IEPs are written to match the needs of the student. To ensure that IEPs are written

consistently and appropriately, the district may consider strengthening training and oversight of the

IEP creation process. While there is no simple way to build capacity of a wide range of staff with

varying degrees of experience and regular turnover year from year, there are some approaches that

have been more effective than others. Districts have had the most success by pairing clear, specific

professional development with robust oversight and feedback.

Training a large number of people in a nuanced effort like writing customized and personalized IEPs is

challenging. Effective training includes:

• Sample language and services for common student needs.

• Discussion and agreement on best practices for common student needs.

• Examples of unclear or non-best practice based IEPs. It is important to highlight what is not

desired as much as it is to highlight what is.

Training alone will not likely be sufficient to build capacity. Providing in-the-moment learning and

after-the-fact feedback will also be needed. Staff that have already mastered these skills must provide

review, direction and feedback in order to build capacity system wide.

20

Fortunately, the district has two roles that come close to this: the LEA facilitator and staffing

specialists. A comprehensive review and discussion of their roles and responsibilities could help create

focus and build capacity. This work should be done in close collaboration with current staff and must

take off as many responsibilities that are added, to avoid overloading them and diminishing their

effectiveness.

This opportunity also requires ensuring school-based LEAs have regular access to district leadership,

have the necessary tools and information to advise and support staff in their building(s), and have

sufficient support from school-based leadership.

Table 5. Reported activities for LEA facilitator and staffing specialist

LEA Facilitator Staffing Specialist

Activity Time Spent per

Week per FTE

% of Time

Spent

Time Spent per

Week per FTE

% of Time

Spent

Student instruction or support 1h 59m 5% - -

Total Direct Service 1h 59m 5% - -

Paperwork (other than IEP) 3h 20m 9% 2h 25m 6%

Attend meeting (other than IEP) 1h 26m 4% 0h 47m 2%

Total Paperwork & Meeting 4h 46m 13% 3h 12m 8%

Attend meeting (IEP) 9h 22m 24% 9h 46m 25%

Paperwork (IEP) 6h 31m 17% 10h 37m 27%

Total IEP-related Activities 15h 53m 41% 20h 23m 52%

Collaboration with colleagues 3h 49m 10% 3h 58m 10%

Planning/materials preparation 0h 58m 3% 1h 9m 3%

Total Planning and

Collaboration 4h 47m 13% 5h 7m 13%

Assigned school duties 3h 11m 8%

Parent communication 1h 56m 5% 0h 19m 1%

Personal lunch 1h 44m 5% 1h 39m 4%

Student observation 0h 34m 2% - -

Coaching/staff development 0h 32m 1% 1h 40m 4%

Classroom Observation (in class) 0h 28m 1% - -

Creating/monitoring academic

initiatives 0h 26m 1% - -

Professional development

(receiving) 0h 20m 1% 0h 58m 3%

Data analysis 0h 15m 1% 1h 2m 3%

Reflection/Debrief with teacher 0h 13m 1% 0h 2m 0%

Data meeting 0h 11m 1% - -

Professional development

(giving) 0h 6m 0% 0h 39m 2%

Researching practices 0h 2m 0% 0h 23m 1%

Travel 0h 1m 0% 3h 2m 8%

Total Other 9h 59m 27% 9h 44m 26%

Total under-reported time* 1h 15m 3% 0h 19m 1%


21

3b. Create a streamlined system to track and report fulfillment of IEP services.

Given the fairly widespread concern that IEPs are not being fulfilled every week, the district would be

well served to have a means to track and report this. This review could not determine if IEPs are or are

not being fulfilled as needed, especially since regulations allow for makeup sessions. What is clear is

that many parents feel that required services are not being provided and it can be difficult for the

district to know for certain if they were in fact provided as required.

Some districts use enterprise-wide software for tracking services provided and others utilize more

localized staff-based logs. There is not one best way to gather and track this information.

Most importantly, the system must be easy to use, quick to access when questions arise and checked

for accuracy on a regular basis.

22

Opportunity 4: Align academic supports to best practices.

The type, amount of time, and quality of intervention supports vary across the district. Coordination

between general education staff and interventionists varies considerably by school and many staff

expressed frustration over a lack of common planning time.

Key quotes about academic supports include:

• “Some schools use paraprofessionals to be interventionists—but you can’t just hire someone

off the street to teach intervention.”

• “A 30 minute ‘Triple I’ intervention time is built into most elementary school schedules and a

lot of high schools have an intensive reading program, but there is a ton of variation in

quality.”

• “Many staff that run interventions don’t have a good understanding of how to work with

students, even though they often work with the students who struggle the most.”

The research is clear: the effectiveness of a teacher has greater impact on student outcomes than any

other school-based factor, including curriculum, purchased programs or teaching approach. Students

who struggle, with and without an IEP, benefit greatly from highly effective teachers. Effective

teachers typically have deep expertise in the material they are teaching and support from other highly

skilled and effective teachers. Additionally, for districts with large numbers of students who are not

meeting goals, it is not desirable or practical to serve all such students through small group or

individual Tier II or special education interventions. Many of these students can and must be helped

through improvements in Tier I instruction.


4a. Ensure that content-strong staff provide interventions and support. Schools should

assign teachers with expertise in teaching subjects such as math, English, and reading to provide

interventions to students who struggle the most. Just as the content expertise of the general education

classroom teacher is critical to high-quality instruction in the regular classroom, it is essential that

students who receive extra time and extra help receive this support from staff with deep content and

pedagogical knowledge of the subjects they are teaching and who have extensive training and aptitude.

Content-strong experts have the ability to identify missing foundational skills, correct misconceptions,

and break down complex ideas in a way that is more accessible for struggling learners. As standards

have risen and the complexity of the content increased, staff having a deep understanding and mastery

of what they teach has become even more important. Given the greater complexity of the subject

matter at the secondary level, in particular, it can be difficult for staff without subject matter expertise

to explain key concepts, to reteach material using two or three different approaches or interpret

underlying misconceptions from students based on their incorrect answers.

This is particularly important for the subject of reading. For students who struggle to read, research

indicates that the subject-specific training of the instructor has significant bearing on the student’s

23

likelihood of achieving grade-level mastery. Effective teachers of reading can come from different

backgrounds, including classroom teachers, certified reading teachers, or special educators.

Unfortunately, certification is not a reliable indicator of who is or is not an effective teacher of reading.

Training, coursework, and past results are far better indicators. For example, some classroom teachers

may have little formal training in teaching reading, but regularly achieve more than a year’s growth

each year with students who started the year behind grade level. Conversely, some special educators

may have received their degrees and certification without taking more than one course in how to teach

reading. Some special education teachers are strong advocates for the needs of students with

disabilities, and have much expertise in pedagogical practices, but have limited background in the

teaching of reading. Districts that have made the most significant gains among struggling readers have

done so by providing students who struggle, both with and without IEPs, extra time with teachers

skilled in the teaching of reading.

4b. Focus paraprofessional support on health, safety, and behavior needs, rather than

academic needs. It is not uncommon for students who are assigned a paraprofessional—and who

have the greatest academic need—to receive the least attention from a certified teacher. It is therefore

important that the district focus paraprofessional support on student health, safety, and behavior

needs, and have certified reading teachers, interventionists, and other trained specialist focus on

academic and other specific needs.

It is a more effective intervention to provide extra time with teachers who are highly-skilled in the

teaching of reading than in-class support from paraprofessionals, who generally do not have extensive

training in the teaching of reading. Further, students who are receiving support from a

paraprofessional in the classroom may experience less time and attention from content-strong

teachers. It is not uncommon for a general education teacher to assume that students with additional

adult support are “taken care of,” and instead focus their attention on those who have no additional

adult support.

24

Figure 7. Percent of day spent by Paraprofessionals on student instruction/support by subject

Of the 56 percent of time spent on direct service to students, paraprofessionals reported spending 73

percent of that time on direct academic support across a variety of subjects, including 23 percent of

the time on reading.

Figure 8. Paraprofessional Staffing Levels Compared to Similar Districts per 1,000 Students*

*District staff benchmarking from DMGroup proprietary database of districts nation-wide. Similar districts exhibit similarities in per pupil spending, poverty

level, special education identification rate, and student enrollment.

25

The district has six percent more paraprofessionals per 1,000 students compared to peer districts,

suggesting that the role is slightly overstaffed in the district.

Importantly, reading is the gateway to all other learning. Writing, social studies, and science cannot be

mastered without strong reading skills. Even modern math is full of word problems; reading and math

success are highly correlated. Research has shown overwhelmingly that early intervention in reading

can change the trajectory of a student’s life; getting low-income students to read at grade level by third

grade closes the graduation gap with their wealthy peers and all but assures that they will graduate on

time. However, paraprofessional staff likely lack specific training in teaching reading and generally do

not coordinate the content with general education content or instruction.

Given this, in order to best support students who struggle, especially in reading, the district should

carefully review in what ways paraprofessionals are deployed at schools and, when possible adjust

paraprofessional support to focus on supporting the health, safety, and behavior of students who

struggle.

Figure 9. Reported number of students per group for paraprofessionals

Paraprofessionals in the district reported spending time directly supporting students in a variety of

group sizes. Based on these figures, the district may consider more closely examining what types of

students and in which settings paraprofessionals are providing support to ensure that students who

struggle the most are not receiving academic support from paraprofessionals.

26

Opportunity 5: Creatively address the shortage of qualified ESE

teachers.

All 50 states are reporting a shortage of ESE staff and Florida is no exception. The overwhelming

nature of the work has led to staff burnout, high turnover, and fewer applicants in nearly every

district.

Staff noted the difficultly of hiring and retaining qualified and certified ESE teachers across the

district. This results in district-based ESE staff working with substitute teachers who do not

understand students’ needs, making it very difficult to “build traction” and fully meet students’ needs.

ESE staff also commented how the perceived high level of documentation and large student caseload

can be “overwhelming” and are two factors that drive staff away from ESE positions.

Key quotes about the shortage of qualified ESE teachers include:

• “We have a lot of ESE teachers that haven’t been formally trained in ESE.”

• “There is a huge shortage of ESE certified teachers. We end up dealing with subs who don’t

have an understanding of student needs.”

• “We have always had a void when hiring ESE teachers.”

• “The school has just hired paras to be interventionists. You can’t just hire someone off the

street to teach an intervention. I don’t even bother with the help because I’m not teaching

both the students and the adults.”

• “I feel like I’m the chief data collector because of all the paperwork and monitoring I have to

do.”

• “I left ESE because I had over 60 kids. I was pulled to too many meetings and couldn’t

actually teach. The ESE paperwork is out of control.”


5a. Allow special educators to play to their strengths. Unlike nearly any other role in a school

system, special educators are asked to do an extremely wide range of tasks, including teach three, four

or even five subjects, manage the IEP process, monitor compliance, know the law, guide parents

through a complex process, assess eligibility, manage behaviors and more. Every staff member has

unique strengths that allow them to excel their job, but few can be expected to be an expert in all these

areas.

Narrowing the range of what's expected from any one staff member enables teachers to focus on

applying their particular strength to benefit students, simplifies professional development for special

education teachers, and helps make the work more sustainable for existing staff while simultaneously

27

positioning the work to be more attractive to potential hires. This can also help address teachers’

frustration at having to choose among keeping up on required paperwork, keeping up on curriculum

changes, and supporting student behavior.

Common ways a special education teacher’s role may be tailored to allow staff to play to their

strengths include:

• Content-Specific Expertise: Teachers who have specific strengths in academic content

areas (e.g. reading instruction, math instruction) should focus on maximizing their time

supporting students in their academic area of specialization.

• Pedagogical Expertise: Teachers with pedagogical expertise should coach general education

teachers on accommodating the needs of students with disabilities and on using scaffolding,

differentiation, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), chunking, and other teaching strategies.

• Social-Emotional Expertise: Special education teachers with a strong background in

providing social-emotional or behavior supports to students should focus on delivering these

important supports. These teachers can work with students on self-monitoring strategies and

can coach teachers on how to avoid behavior triggers.

• Case Management Expertise: Some special education teachers are particularly efficient

and effective in managing the IEP process. These teachers should focus on case management

responsibilities and thereby allow other special education teachers more time to serve

students.

Figure 10. Percent of day spent by VE Teachers on student instruction/support by subject

28

Of the 57 percent, on average, of a VE teacher’s day that is spent providing direct services to students,

85 percent of that time is spent in direct academic instruction. Of the time spent on academic

instruction, of 38 percent of that time, on average, is devoted to reading, 31 percent to math, 8 percent

to writing, 5 percent to science, and 3 percent to social studies. Best practice calls for VE teachers to

focus only on subjects that they are content strong in and equipped to provide direct instruction.

Figure 11. VE Teacher Staffing Levels Compared to Similar Districts per 1,000 Students*

The district has 23 percent fewer VE teachers than peer districts. This suggests that the district has a

relatively lean VE staffing model to support students.

*District staff benchmarking from DMGroup proprietary database of districts nation-wide. Similar districts exhibit similarities in per pupil spending, poverty

level, special education identification rate, and student enrollment.

29

Figure 12. Percent of time spent with students by school psychologists

Psychologists in the district spend four percent of their time providing direct services to students on

average, with many not providing any direct services to students. This suggests that the role of a

psychologist in the district is largely focused on supporting and facilitating testing and evaluation,

which is very common.

Figure 13. Estimated average number of student evaluations per psychologist, 2018-2019

This is supported by the fact that the 47 psychologists in the district complete, on average, an

estimated 146 student evaluations per year.

30

Table 14. Reported activities for school psychologists

Activity Hours per

Week per FTE

% of Time

Spent

Counseling 0h 57m 3%

Crisis intervention 0h 28m 1%

Total Direct Service 1h 25m 4%

Paperwork (other than IEP/504) 4h 49m 12%

Attend meeting (other than IEP/504) 2h 41m 7%

Attend meeting (504) 0h 36m 2%

Total Paperwork/Meetings 6h 6m 21%

Test scoring/interpretation 5h 2m 13%

Assessment/testing 4h 41m 12%

Attend meeting (IEP) 1h 20m 3%

Paperwork (IEP) 1h 16m 3%

Total IEP-related Activities 13h 19m 33%

Collaboration with colleagues 7h 9m 19%

Planning/materials preparation 2h 46m 7%

Agency coordination of supports and services 1h 3m 3%

Total Planning and Collaboration 10h 58m 29%

Personal lunch 1h 51m 5%

Student observation 1h 27m 4%

Travel 1h 6m 3%

Parent communication 0h 48m 2%

Assigned school duties 0h 12m 1%

Total Other 5h 24m 15%

Total under-reported time* 0h 9m 0%


Psychologists reported spending 33 percent of their time on IEP-related activities, including 12

percent of their time on assessment and testing.

31

5b. Shift some academic support to general education teachers. Districts that have made the

most significant gains among struggling students have done so by providing these students, whether

or not they have IEPs, with teachers skilled in content instruction during extra instructional time.

While some ESE teachers are strong reading, writing, and math teachers, many do not have the

training or expertise to deliver high quality academic supports. Moreover, the district, like all districts,

is struggling to hire and retain sufficient ESE staff.

By redefining the role of general education teachers to take responsibility for what and how struggling

students, include those with IEPs, are taught, the learning of special education students can increase

dramatically without requiring an increase in ESE staff. The district therefore may consider exploring

ways to add or expand ways for general education teachers to provide targeted academic interventions

to students. As effective and robust RTI/ MTSS services increase academic support services can be

provided by certified general education staff, which are not experiencing the same level of teacher

shortages as ESE staff.

32

Opportunity 6: Reconfigure the district’s organizational structure to

better coordinate and align efforts to address student social,

emotional, and behavioral needs.

The current organizational structure of Polk County Public Schools reflects a common and thoughtful

staffing structure and is in line with many of its peer districts. However, the existing structure may not

fully maximize the district’s ability to implement best practices, specifically related to providing

effective social, emotional, and behaviors supports to students. There are three opportunities that the

district may consider to facilitate greater levels of interconnectedness and teamwork while reducing

“siloing” of efforts between departments.


6a. Create stronger cross-department connections. Many staff across the district have strong

informal relationships with their peers within and across departments and schools. These

relationships are beneficial to team building and sharing practices across the district but rely primarily

on informal connections and the initiative of individual staff members. The district therefore may

consider establishing more formal structures to coordinate efforts between departments; this is

especially true for work conducted between the Academic and ESE departments. Potential structures

to consider include:

• Allowing middle and high school counselors to specialize in one of three categories:

scheduling, college readiness, or social, emotional, and behavioral supports. The titles for these

school counselors should be updated to reflect their specialization. Specialization will allow for

guidance counselors to focus on the services that they are both interested in and can most

expertly provide. This can create clarity by ensuring that staff across departments in the

district know precisely which type of counselor to reach out to for a specific challenge.

• Creating an internal ESE liaison whose role is designed to coordinate services with the

academic leads of literacy, math, and science. The purpose of this role is two-fold: first, to

assist the current academic leads to ensure that the needs of students with mild to moderate

exceptionalities are appropriately met when designing general education curriculum; and

second, to work with academic leads to prepare curriculum and programming for students

with more severe exceptionalities and needs.

6b. Strengthen the connection between discipline and behavior and mental health

departments. Currently, the Senior Director of Discipline in the district reports to Deputy

Superintendent while the Director of Behavior and Mental Health Support in the district reports to the

Assistant Superintendent of Learning Support. This structure results in a separation of the Discipline

department from the Behavior and Mental Health Support department and does not facilitate strong

33

and clear connections between the two departments, despite the often interrelated work between

them.

The district can address this challenge by assigning a common administrator to oversee both

departments. Doing so can help ensure the efforts of the two departments are more effectively aligned

and complimentary.

6c. Utilize joint professional development sessions to improve services. In order to

improve services within the district and to build cross-group relationships, the district can hold more

joint professional development sessions between the Academic and ESE departments as well as

between the Discipline and Behavior and Mental Health Supports department. Doing so can improve

cross-department relationships by increasing the amount of time staff can work with and learn from

one another. Additionally, hosting joint professional development can allow staff to more effectively

share and discuss school- or district-specific best practices to serve students who struggle (both with

and without an IEP).

special education and struggling students opportunity review · academic achievement of struggling...

Documents