Reorganizing focused programs brings stability, a curriculum continuum

I was a guest speaker at the May 18 meeting of Special Education PTA of Portland, SEPTAP.  Like I said on this blog following my first visit to SEPTAP last December, it was a privilege for me to be invited to speak at the forum provided by this group.  Roughly 50 parents turned out for this meeting.  Several of my Integrated Student Support team program members also attended. 

We talked about the reorganization and renaming of self contained programs. The new terminology is “Focus continuum programs/teams.”  The change is a result of a multi-year program review.  The ISS program review began as an audit of our budget and grew into a complete look at how the entire program serves students.  The review included all stakeholders—parents, students, educators, community partners, and administrators. The process also involved gathering an extensive amount of data, anecdotal information and ideas on how to improve the program.   The goal is to improve service to students. Read a blog post about the program review by clicking here and get a nuts and bolts perspective of it by visiting this website.

The changes we talked about at the meeting spurred many questions.  We spent approximately an hour taking questions from audience members, who posed many thoughtful questions.  I’ll start by relaying the main points of what I attempted to convey at the meeting.  Questions from parents, along with our responses, will follow.

Focused programs replace “self-contained” classrooms

Self-contained programs (now called Focused Programs) serve approximately six percent, or 496, of students within the ISS program (formerly known as “special education”).  These programs have been located randomly throughout the district, housed in whichever building had capacity when a need for a new program arose.  This has resulted in a district-wide situation where a continuum of curriculum is not present within each school. It means that any given school may not be able to serve its students throughout his or her education.  For instance, it means a school that serves general education students from kindergarten through fifth grade may not be able to serve students in a focused program throughout those grade levels. The school may have only have focused programs for K through 3rd grade. For fourth and fifth, students may have to switch to another school.  I told the story through the eyes of a young student in a previous blog post.

The fact that many students in the focused programs have had to switch schools three, four and even five times in their first six years of school is counter-productive.  To remedy this, Portland Public Schools next fall will implement a plan to reorganize K-8 focused programs. This reorganization is happening after an extensive, inclusive and careful review of the ISS program.  Last month, we sent a letter explaining this to parents of students who will be in this type of program next school year.

Reorganizing our focused programs brings much-needed stability for students and families. Changes in school locations are reduced as students move through grade levels.  The focus of programs is more carefully designed to ensure a full range of services that includes appropriate curriculum.  Program descriptions, entry and exit guidelines, and locations are more transparent to our families and staff who need information to make good decisions.

A district-wide inventory of curriculum used in K-8 focused programs is underway.  The inventory will identify gaps between available curriculum and student needs.  The next step will be to purchase curriculum in areas where we find gaps.

Another important aspect of this reorganization is that students will be aligned with their comprehensive high school area.

Renaming focused programs brings appropriate, descriptive label

Renaming the focused program with a more accurate label will do a better job of conveying how these programs function.  Going forward, what we used to call self-contained will be known as Focused Program or Focused Team.      

This label is appropriate because the programs are focused in a number of ways.  For instance, the teams of people who support these programs are being structured to deliver expertise aligned with the specific needs of students assigned to their rooms.  This has not been possible previously because under the self contained model, students have been assigned to a classroom regardless of their individual needs.  Students of all abilities and functioning at all levels could be found in one classroom.  It meant that students who are fragile and or have a mental health condition were mixed with those who are externalizing behaviors.  Under the new model, the focus programs also bring much needed focus for students.  The focus team at each school also is charged with supporting general education teachers in a way that will enable them to be more attuned to the needs of their special education students. This will be done through training by the program team, TOSA support, and extensive on-going training in buildings where there is a full time special education coordinator.  Schools that do not have a special education coordinator will receive training from the central ISS office program administrator, TOSA and other professional experts. 

We know these changes mean another painful move for students.  Going forward, however, the reorganization—with district-wide support that starts with our superintendent—will be an improvement for students and those who will follow.  It is for the long-term, greater good of all of our kids.

Click here for a listing of the program descriptions.

Contact us with your questions.  One of the best ways to reach us with questions about the focused program is by calling a hotline set up expressly for this purpose: 503-916-3931.

Question and Answer Session

Q. What was the decision-making process in regard to how students are being assigned to a focus program for the upcoming school year?

A. We organized our focus programs by high schools as much as possible and within clusters.  Several clusters are combined, based on the number of students who need these programs in certain geographical areas. In a few instances, the closest school is not very close to their home.

Q. How will the Learning Centers change? The current staffing model is very painful for the buildings.

A. Some learning centers will experience FTE cuts based on lower student population projections. In July, we’ll know specifics to look at the student numbers again and reallocate staff.  We’ve made a declaration to principals that the learning center and the model used to staff it will be getting attention in an effort to improve it.  This is one of the next areas of focus for ISS.

Q. The number of hours that para educators can work keeps getting cut. How can they do a good job when their day keeps getting shorter?

A. The reality is that in the face of declining budgets, we have to make cuts.  Our first priority is to keep cuts away from services to students.  So we look everywhere else first.  We’ve cut administrators, TOSA’s, positions at the district-level, as well as para hours. The para time has been added back. We’ve also added para educator positions in programs.  Everybody is trying to do the right thing.  It’s hard times.

Q.  Is the ISS department becoming less marginalized with these changes?

A. The ISS department has worked collaboratively on the focus continuum project with the district-wide committee on staffing and space.  We work and collaborate with HR on all union and staffing procedures, policies and issues.  This year we had a special education administrator and a TOSA work in the curriculum and instruction department overseeing the purchase and professional development of special education supplemental curriculum.  We continue to work on strategies to ensure that all students are embraced as their school building community. This means as they enter a focus continuum program and transition to a full-day in general education they can remain at the school through the end of the natural grade level transition. 

Q.  I was part of the stakeholder process for the program review you’ve mentioned tonight.  One of the issues that came up during that process is a desire to keep kids in the self-contained classroom at one school during their elementary career.  Another issue that is very important to stakeholders is to get kids to their neighborhood school.  But the problem is that when a building needs more space students in the self contained classroom are seen as the most expendable because they are not from the surrounding neighborhood.  So kids should be able to stay in their neighborhood schools with a one-on-one para and not go to self-contained classrooms in other parts of the district.

A.  The part that is hard is “Do we have the expertise within general education? Do we have it at the neighborhood schools?”  Currently, no.  We need to do training with our general education teachers. The answer is not a one-on-one para educator following a student from class to class or sitting in a general education classroom with a student all day.  Then para becomes the child’s educator.  But not many para’s have that capability.  We have to build focused expertise within the buildings.  There is no black and white answer to your question.  It is what we are working toward with focus programs.

Q.  How can you assure us that this change with the focused program won’t happen again? Our kids have to change classes next year and who’s to say in another year it won’t be put back the way it was?

A.  This reorganization was a priority recommendation from our special education program review. This reorganization of the focused programs is a significant undertaking.   This reorganization is a thoughtful plan.  There is significant commitment from all stakeholders from all levels of leadership.  This change has district-wide support, including budget support from Superintendent Smith. 

Q.  Why can’t some kids be grandfathered in so that they don’t have to change schools because of this?

A.  The only way to reorganize the focused programs was to have all the students move to their home cluster for 2010-1011.  This balanced the classroom numbers and provides capacity for students who live in a cluster area to be served there. There is a domino effect. 

Q.  This is segregation.  Instead of Integrated Student Support, the program should be called Segregated Student Support.  Students should be able to go to their neighborhood school and be in a class with everyone else.  How can they have separate programs with a separate curriculum?

A.  Integrated Student Support is a department that encompasses the district’s PreK-12 counseling department, health services, special education, mental health services, 504 and district-wide discipline.

Students in the focus programs are not segregated.  We staff at a level so students have access to general education as determined by the IEP team.  The curriculum used in the classrooms is also determined by the IEP team.  It has been selected as appropriate to meet the goals and objectives on the IEP.

Students that need a level of support beyond what can be provided in the general education classroom attend focus programs and have access to the general education setting through this program. The high level of staff expertise in the focus program provides support to the student and to the general education teacher so that the inclusion experience is successful. 

Q.  Are students going to have to change buildings as they emerge to a general education program?

A.  One of the benefits of this change is that a student does not have to change schools when he or she goes to general education. 

Q.  What kind of preparation is happening within the building and for the general education teachers before students arrive at the focus program?

A. An all-day in-service is scheduled for general education at 11 schools that will have the most students in focus programs.  The in-service is scheduled June 18.  In addition, special education coordinators assigned to those 11 schools are charged with providing on-going support.

Q. What about the schools that are not part of that group of 11 schools?  What is being done at those schools?

A.  They will be supported by the special education program administrators and TOSA’s.

Q.  Will there be an opportunity for parents to meet teachers and the other people who will work in the programs?

A.  Welcome tours are being coordinated.   Watch this blog for details.

Feedback from a meeting of our Parent Focus Group

The following is feedback we received from parents during a meeting I led on Feb.17, 2010.

School District System-Wide Issues (not strictly under the purview of special education)

• A system for accountability is needed.  Nothing seems to be in place around compliance.  No consequences for failing to comply. Example: Accommodations are not provided in general education classrooms.
• Too many kids are in general education classes
• Lack of time for collaboration between general education teachers and SpEd teachers.
• Teachers are not “required” to attend important in-service. Example: some teachers do not understand “behavior as communication.”
• Teacher expectations of SpEd students; sometimes they are too low!  Both general education and SpEd teachers need to have appropriate expectations.
• Building accessibility has not been addressed.  Students can’t have lunch with peers because of obstacles such as stairs.  A systemic issue that affects all kids with motor issues.  How many programs (music, library, lunch or other academic classrooms) are inaccessible?
• Concern:  What’s been done for first-year teachers? An example was shared of a first-year teacher who didn’t have good classroom management skills or knowledge of curriculum.  What’s being done to mentor new teachers and keep veteran teachers?
• Concern about a lack of a continuum. Third- and fourth-grade students who haven’t learned basic reading and may need more intensive interventions.  Teaching basic skills drops off in grades three and four.  ILC classrooms were effective when student needs a little more than LC.
• With increased requirements (such as those for algebra and world language), some SpEd students will have increased barriers to the Oregon Diploma.
• A question about new diplomas: What if you have a student who is half-way through?
• Special Education issues have not been part of the high school reform discussion.

Special Education Systems Issues

• Define better what parent “input” means. We need to get our teams working better toward consensus.
• Branding:  Is there a different name for “self-contained” classrooms? Such as “LC-B” or “Support Center”?
• Been to five schools – been accused of bouncing.  Child sits “on fence” – high function in some areas – strong needs in others – without standardized curriculum, needs not getting met.

Offerings in Special Education

• Classroom labels are not self-explanatory.
• District Rep needs to know right up front about building variables. Example: Putting APE goal on the IEP of a student who is going into a school with no PE.
• Alternative schools don’t offer all services. Staff sometimes don’t know which services are offered by which schools. And parents need to be able to look up services and their locations.
• Audio library has been difficult to access when families needed support for a struggling reader
• Families are forced to choose a life skills classroom or a general education classroom. There is not an option in-between.
• SLC/A classroom was a perfect fit. But it dropped off the continuum.
• Been to five schools – been accused of bouncing.  Child sits “on fence” – high function in some areas – strong needs in others. Without standardized curriculum, needs not getting met.

Communication/Conflict Resolution

• Concerns about lack of willingness to talk about “what kind” of self-contained classroom.  Focus of classroom and location not discussed.
• Who do you contact when IEP not being implemented? 
• Frustration about where the services are and what building.  Seems like a secret.  Has to rely on “parent network” to get info.
• Information is key for parents.  Staff sometimes acts as if hands tied when asked for information. Example: When a student is transitioning from ECSE to K there is not enough information for parents to make choices.
• Define better what parent “input” means – need to get our teams working better toward consensus.
• Cultural issues: “I’m here to find out information and share it in my community. “
• Big frustration:  Phone calls are not returned. “Then I go from ‘concerned parent’ to ‘angry parent’.”
• Parents feel disempowered around placement/location. What gets communicated is that “you can’t shop.”
• A barrier to information. Seems as if the mentality is: “If everyone knew where these services/options were, they all would be rushing to get them.” This is ridiculous, a  “scarcity” mentality when options are available.  It’s reasonable for parents to have some level of choice about the best fit.
• Communication issue: With general education students, parents are welcome to volunteer. This is not conveyed to SpEd parents. “We do not feel welcomed to volunteer.”  Paras are not allowed to talk with parents.  This is a culture issue with SpEd teachers. Sometimes “district policy” is blamed.
• District needs to trust parents – if we’re going to “jump” we all need to trust each other.
• Have had a very positive experience with Terry Watkins to problem-solve around struggle of getting homework done.
• Team and school community very “embracing”.
• Label classrooms – not understanding what they mean.

Planning for Change

• Will there be a variety of self-contained classrooms in each cluster? 
• Special education issues have not been part of the high school reform discussion.
• Would be willing to go to another school if there was an appropriate level at school.
• When are we going to “jump”?
• Will we be “jumping twice” because of other district reform initiatives (e.g. high school reform)?
• What effect does the shift to self-contained have on costs?
• How do you organize a continuum in a cluster when population shifting?
• Will a student who is at a school be able to stay in cluster?
• District needs to trust parents – if were going to “jump” we all need to trust each other.
• Kudos to Joanne Mabbott for initiating this effort!

Action plans grow out of Day 3 Stakeholders Meeting

The program audit of Integrated Student Support is moving ahead. The latest step in this complex process was the Stakeholder’s Meeting Day 3, held Friday, Feb. 19, 2010.

I opened the meeting with comments intended to set a tone for open-mindedness and collaboration. And to recognize ourselves as change agents.

This effort has been a journey of collecting information, collaborating with partners and thinking about our future as a community of people striving to educate children.

This is hard work that will require tolerance, patience and, most of all, the ability to see things through the eyes of our teammates.

A great leader in teamwork and collaboration is author Stephen Covey. He inspires his audience to practice skills that truly enable people to work together in the right direction, toward a common vision with positive outcomes.

Dr. Covey reminds us that each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective.

But this is not the case. We see the world, not as it is, but as we are—or as we are conditioned to see it. He also says effective people are not problem-minded they’re opportunity minded. They feed opportunities and starve problems. Isn’t that GREAT!

Focusing on Chosen Theme
We moved on to a presentation from a panel of people representing resources within the community and available for parents.

Panel members were: Margaret Brayden, Executive Director, Multnomah County National Alliance on Mental Illness Oregon (NAMI Oregon); Jenna Brandse, Board Member, Northwest Down Syndrome Association (NWDSA); Shiela Warren, PPS Parent Union; Victoria Haight, Regional Trainer, Oregon Parent Training and Information Center (OrPTI); Anne Saracino, Swindell’s Center /Child Disability Resources; and Dawn Macready-Santos, Oregon Families Information Referral Services (OrFIRST).

Facilitator Kenneth Jones shifted gears and informed the group of approximately 80 people representing various stakeholder groups, (educators, specialists, parents, community partners and others) of the goal for the day.

The goal: Create an action plan for the recommendations that grew out of work accomplished at Day 1 and Day 2 of the stakeholder meetings, which were held in December.

Stakeholders sat at tables grouped according to their preference of a topic. Prior to the meeting, participants chose which of the 15 themes they most would like to address in the action-planning process.

The themes are grouped under three categories. They are as follows:

Collaboration
Time to collaborate with all partners (tables A & B addressed this topic)
Team & Co-teaching (table)
Training/Joint Professional Development (table D)
Continuum
Access to LRE in Neighborhood Schools (table E)
Continuum of Services in Each Cluster (tables F, G, & H)
Equity in Staffing Based on Needs (table I)
Clear Entry and Exit Criteria (table J)
Vocational Options & Transition (table K)
Interventions
Special Ed Curriculum & Materials (table L)
Building-wide RTI (academic) (table M)
Building-wide RTI (behavior) (table N)

Before anyone started working, however, we covered a few areas of business.

Our researcher Pat Steinburg and data guru Gary Obermeyer talked about their processes of information-gathering and data crunching. Look for more information from each of them that aims to shed more light on methods used to winnow data and focus on the above-mentioned themes.

Gary created a website that houses a significant amount of the data, as well as work generated at the stakeholder meetings. The website currently is available only for stakeholders. Eventually it will be open to everyone. Meantime, if you have any questions or would like to see information that is part of this program audit, please let me know. We will do our best to facilitate your request.

A theme not reflected in our work thus far is communication. Based on surveys of stakeholders leading up to Day 3, there is a need for action-planning that incorporates communication. In order for stakeholder recommendations to be implemented effectively, communication needs to be built into the process.

We had time for questions. The first was “How will these measures be implemented”? District leadership must give the green light, then stakeholders will be called upon to head-up action groups.

Another person wanted to know how concerns will be addressed that are not part of the Stakeholder process (data pertaining to ELL, diverse students and other areas not reflected in Pat’s information-gathering process). ISS Assistant Director Jennifer Jackson, Chief Academic Officer Xavier Botana and I are addressing this.

Kenneth made the point that the program review and the work being put into it at the stakeholder meetings actually is improving the ability of ISS to get better at addressing concerns.

Another person noted that few general education teachers attended the stakeholder meetings and wanted to know how to improve the showing of general education teachers. Kenneth suggested participants incorporate that goal into their action plans.

Identifying the Problems
Then it was time to get to work.

Kenneth gave the first assignment—Problem Statement Development.

He suggested each group start by reaching agreement on the problem that would be solved if and when an action plan is put into place for each recommendation.

Each table team had about an hour to identify problems associated with their issues. Kenneth requested that a couple of tables relay the problems they identified. His purpose was to demonstrate for everyone how the “problem” should be articulated.

For instance, one table presented its problem as a lack of “initial and new hire training. And that available training does not address the needs of workers. There is a lack of coordination and implementation of the training.”

Kenneth noted that the statement needed to identify a problem. “Those are great statements but what it says is ‘here is a lack of something, there is a lack of something. You need to say what problem would be solved.”

The group easily clarified its message by saying that students suffer because of inadequate training.

Identifying each problem that the recommendations and action plan aim to solve will be helpful in subsequent work, when leadership of the ISS program seeks support from district decision-makers.

Creating a Course of Action
The second assignment was for each group to brainstorm actions needed for each recommendation. Kenneth said to include actions that exist and those that need to be established.

For instance, the two tables focused on “time to collaborate with all partners” had five recommendations to work with. The one that received the most support in the voting phase of the Day 2 meeting is “Provide dedicated collaboration time for general education teachers, special education teachers, itinerants, paraeducators, ELL and TAG.

Presumably that would’ve been the first recommendation addressed by tables A & B.

The third assignment was for each table team to chart their action items for each recommendation according to existing, not existing, within my control and out of my control.

“A Tuning Protocol”
The final component of the day was for groups to pair up and present their action plans. The purpose was to provide and receive warm and cool feedback.

Kenneth emphasized that conversations with clarifying questions for each group and feedback that was neither critical nor complimentary would reveal areas of disconnects, gaps, dilemmas or other weaknesses.

In closing, I reminded stakeholders that the success of our program review is dependent upon their continued participation.

In April, I expect to have an answer from district leadership in regard to how this work will move forward. Meantime, stay tuned for updates on this blog.

Stakeholders working to improve ISS

As you may know, one of the district’s top priorities is to improve the effectiveness of the Integrated Student Support (ISS) program in order that it may better serve students and families.

As I shared at the two-day stakeholder meeting we held at the Memorial Coliseum Dec. 9 and 10, I am making a commitment to you, our stakeholders, that change for the better will happen within the ISS program. I feel it is my call to duty.

We are in the midst of an initiative that aims to do that.

Information-gathering began this year

We started last spring with a program audit that involved getting feedback from approximately 150 people representing stakeholder groups within ISS. Collection of this feedback, and crunching of the data that can be extracted from it, is being led by Pat Steinburg.

Pat has deep experience leading educators, administrators, unions and parents in collaborating to improve education systems and student outcomes. She also has extensive experience coordinating organizational processes in special education and general education. She is a speech pathologist. A resident of Washington State, Pat knows very well the landscape in the Pacific Northwest of special education programs.

In her work with our district, Pat visited 24 schools throughout the district and met face-to-face with stakeholders in individual and group interviews. She listened to administrators, educators, specialists, parents, the assistive technology team, TOSAs, the High School System Design Team, representatives from organizations that represent teachers, para-educators , and other employees, as well as with additional stakeholders.

This is a remarkable undertaking in that it never has happened at PPS. It also is significant because we have amassed from our stakeholders substantive information that reveals what works and what doesn’t.

This input has yielded data specific to special education and key in advancing our effort. The information shows us the perceptions of stakeholders, whether the system is working and makes our challenges more quantifiable. Ultimately, it helps us focus on areas where changes are needed in order to serve students better.

This kind of information-gathering is the first step in a process that organizations use when they are serious about making real change.

Proposals Coming from You

Last Wednesday and Thursday, about 108 people from our stakeholder groups—parents, educators, community partners, and administrators—gathered to participate in the effort to improve ISS. A professional facilitator led the event.

I found the process of the meeting very exciting. We heard from people who represent stakeholder groups. Everyone has a different experience in regard to ISS, formerly known as Special Education. We learned a lot about how the ISS program serves our students and families and also about how it fails to serve.

After hearing from our stakeholders, we saw highlights of the data and themes that have emerged from it. We discussed both.

The data and themes, not surprisingly, mirrored what the stakeholders told us at the meeting.

We also had lots of time take and answer questions.

Thursday afternoon, we got to the part everyone is waiting for.

Within our table teams, we focused on themes that emerged from the data. We also had the task of crafting recommendations for change.

Each team of approximately six to seven people was asked to brainstorm and come up with solutions according to these themes:

Address dissatisfaction with issues around inclusion of students in general education

[Related themes are: In-service needs (differentiated instruction, curricular adaptations/adoptions and interventions); increase time and opportunities for general and special educators to collaboratively develop individual student programs; and more access to para-educator time.

Consistent use of school-wide intervention plans/programs

[Related themes are: Reduce school-wide/classroom interruptions and improve safety; and early detection that results in early interventions for students with learning/behavioral issues.

Continuum of special education services

[Related themes are: The mix of students in special education programs interferes with the ability of special education teachers to meet the needs of all students who are assigned; increase continuum of program options for students in special education, including those with cognitive disabilities, behavioral disabilities and autism spectrum disorder

And brainstorm we did! For roughly two hours, it seemed everyone was at their table, engaged with their team and focused. Each one of us helped come up with recommendations for solving some of the weakest links in the ISS program. Each team wrote recommendations on poster-sized paper—one sheet for each of the three main areas.

On a fourth sheet of paper, we noted information that was missing or overlooked in the data.

Voting

As groups finished their recommendations, event coordinators taped papers to the wall. Themes were clustered, i.e., all of the pages with recommendations related to “continuum of special education services” were put together on one end of the room. Pages that suggested information missing or overlooked were put together at another end of the wall and so on.

When each team finished its recommendations and all the pages were hung, it was time to vote on the recommendations.

Everyone was given two sets of stickers.

We were told to put a gold star next to the four recommendations that we thought were “must haves” and a blue dot next to recommendations that are good and should be considered for implementation later. We each had four gold stars and four blue dots. We were told to vote for each idea only one time, not to vote four times for something that we really liked.

Then we got the OK to get up from our seats. It seemed that everyone, without hesitation, headed toward a corner of the room and began reading the recommendations.

We spent about 45 minutes making our selections.

My staff is working to tally the votes to see which have risen to the top. Stay tuned. We’ll post results as soon as possible.

(We are creating type-written versions of the sheets done by table teams. We hope to have them posted online very soon. Check back for details.)

Since our stakeholder meeting, I’ve received positive feedback. The event has been described as “worthy,” and “meaningful.” One person told me that they “feel for the first time in a longtime that something actually is going to change.”

Action Launches in February

The next step will be to generate a report from the meeting. We expect to complete that by the end of January.

In February, we’ll reunite the same 108 people who attended last week’s event. People can volunteer at that time to part of either an action panel or an advisory panel.

At February meeting, each action group will choose one of the “winning” or top proposals. The action groups will be designated catalysts, charged with implementing the proposal for change.

Advisory groups will serve to assist the action groups.

We hope to see some changes implemented in the 2010-2011 school year. Please keep in mind however, that this is a multi-year effort.

After our February meeting, we’ll report back with more details.

Feedback is encouraged. Please feel free to post here with recommendations and other comments that are constructive.