1 / 17

Lexington SEPAC January Meeting – Student Services Staffing & Financial Assessment (Report) - Summary

Lexington SEPAC January Meeting – Student Services Staffing & Financial Assessment (Report) - Summary. January 6, 2011. One Slide Summary. The district provides very high levels of service and staffing

yoko
Download Presentation

Lexington SEPAC January Meeting – Student Services Staffing & Financial Assessment (Report) - Summary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lexington SEPAC January Meeting – Student Services Staffing & Financial Assessment (Report) - Summary January 6, 2011

  2. One Slide Summary • The district provides very high levels of service and staffing • The special education achievement gap is small compared with similar districts, and the absolute achievement level is very high • There is an equity / consistency issue for both students and special ed teachers / staff

  3. Fifteen Minute Summary • Why was this study undertaken? • What was the scope of work? • What methodology was used? • What data were gathered? • What are the conclusions and recommendations?

  4. Why was this study undertaken? • Dr. Ash / Mrs. Chase wanted to know how Lexington is doing in the special education areas that were studied • How does the staffing in Lexington compare with other high-performing districts, both locally and nationally? • Is Lexington special education both high quality and efficient?

  5. What was the scope of work? • Analyze the following four special education services: • Speech and language • Occupational therapy • Resource room • Counseling (for students on IEPs) • The analysis focused on these three aspects of the above services: • Staffing levels • Financial resource allocation • Teaching methodology / approach

  6. What methodology was used? • 100+ face-to-face interviews with teachers, administrators, and others • Visits to schools and classrooms • Gathered 100+ typical weekly schedules (nearly 100% compliance) • (Not able to use IEP software database)

  7. What data were gathered? • Most of the data presented were derived from the typical weekly schedules: • Percentage of time spent with students (direct service) • Caseloads • Group sizes

  8. Speech and Language data • Direct Services to students varied among SLPs • A low of 28% • A high of 82% • An average of 57% • Group sizes varied among SLPs • Some therapists work mostly 1:1 • Others work mostly with groups of 2 or 3+ students

  9. Occupational Therapy data • Direct Services to students varied among therapists • A low of 23% • A high of 62% • An average of 45% • Group sizes varied among therapists • Most therapists work 30-50% of their time 1:1 • Some therapists work with groups of 2 or 3+ students while others work mostly 1:1

  10. Resource Room data • Direct Services to students varied among teachers • A low of 39% • A high of 91% • An average of 57% • Group sizes varied among teachers • Some work exclusively with groups of 2 or 3+ • Others work mostly 1:1 or 2:1

  11. Conclusions / Commendations • High levels of service and staffing • Small special education achievement gap • High expectations / continuous improvement • Special education population (17%) is very close to the state average

  12. Conclusions / Recommendations • Need a theory of action – why will certain strategies raise student achievement • Discuss / debate / create workload guidelines • Discuss / debate / create guidelines for eligibility, service levels, group sizes, and exit criteria • Scheduling software; IEP s/w – sharing data • Improved communication mechanisms

  13. Discussion - Service Delivery • Service delivery choices: • Frequency of service • Pull-out vs. push-in (in-class) services • 1:1 or small group • If small group, what size is best? • Is more service always better? • Is 1:1 service always better than small group?

  14. Discussion - Consistency / Standards / Guidelines • Compared with general ed, special ed has a lot more variation / inconsistency • Example – LHS math teachers – 5 classes x 4 blocks = 20 blocks; 12 blocks for prep / correcting papers / helping students / meetings / etc. • Example – elementary teachers – 4 main subjects – prep / correct papers / etc. during specials • What assessments for eligibility are used? • What are the guidelines for eligibility?

  15. Discussion - Medical Care Analogy • Rapidly escalating costs • More money does not always lead to better outcomes • Need to focus on both best practices and efficiencies • Anxiety about systems that seek to limit care • Develop best practices by looking at how well various types of care work

  16. Discussion - What is Next (regarding this report)? • The district has already begun to address some of the issues raised in the report • Monday afternoon specialist meetings • Dr. Ash is still deciding what is next • Possibilities – multiple groups to study the various issues raised in the report • Come up with a set of questions to address • Dr. Ash will involve parents in the process

  17. Discussion - How should the SEPAC be involved? • Participate in the group / groups that will be discussing the consultant’s recommendations

More Related