Anthony Coi Y2 Final July2014

Jean Anthony COI Final July 2014
Reflections on the Year 2 Cycle of Inquiry:

Students in special education perform below standard. Taken as a whole,
nationwide, this is not a surprising statement. The very definition of special education
eligibility is based on a deficit in a students ability or performance. Over the course of the
school year, I conducted two interviews with each principal (and some assistant principals)
and found consistent evidence that they wanted to gain increased knowledge,
understanding and flexibility when it came to leading for special education. The comments
below are representative of the recurring themes:
I need help knowing what it looks like to be an effective administrator in an IEP or
evaluation feedback meeting.
What is my role, especially with the behavior component, to support families,
students and staff?
What does good special education instruction look like?
Theres a fear of not having enough skills, of not knowing what to do and litigation.
We lose sight on whats good for kids and just focus on winning.
Principals need training on how to collaborate, how to be an advocate, specifics of
how-to in special education, how to lead a good IEP meeting, how to communicate,
how to do pre-IEP meeting planning.
I need to know the roles of ESAs and how to work with them. What are reasonable
expectations for psychologists or therapists job performance? Whats okay and
what isnt okay?
We could use some training. Theres a fear around compliance and the (special
education) curriculum guidelines make scheduling challenging. We should never
sacrifice a student for the fidelity of our curriculum. We lack autonomy to make
decisions for specific student needs.
Theres a disconnect between gen ed and special education. Theres a
defragmentation of delivery of special education services and what goes on in the
students classroom.
Were over serving our students with Paras and underserving them with Certs. Our
Paras have no training. They need training in discipline and behavior and whats a
disability.


1
These interviews lead me to believe that the focus should be on increasing the
capacity of the leaders in the district, both teachers and administrators, to lead for special
education, however, I was missing the mark. The claims and evidence I presented in
February ended up being too far removed from the problem of practice for students. The
COI just didnt feel right; it felt elusive and misguided; I had lost sight of the big picture
Stepping back, I realized that the Bellevue School District needed a systems
overhaul and that my view, my theory of action, was too narrow. Before I could focus on a
single component, such as developing principals capacity to lead for special education, I
needed to take a broader look. What was missing? What was the first order of business I
needed to take care of in order to improve the educational outcomes for students in special
education? The entire special education administration, which included the four
supervisors and myself, were new and unknown to everyone. We had no track record and
the entire district, including parents, staff and central office administration, took a bit of a
wait and see approach. I began to pick off some low hanging fruit (to quote one of my
team members) to address problems that could be easily taken care of (such as providing
training for Para Educators on topics like behavior as a function of communication), which
created momentum and began to build relational trust (Bryk and Schneider 2003).
The problem of practice I identified for students remains the focus: students in
special education perform significantly below students who are not in special education in
reading and math assessments. The problem of practice for teachers is that they deliver
specially designed instruction through an inflexible model using direct-instruction
curriculum that does not link to the core curriculum in the general education classroom.
The role of the central office administrators, such as myself, in this problem of practice is

2
that we are implementing programs, practices and policies without examining the results
and then adjusting our work to increase the effectiveness of the special education
programs in order to meet the districts Instructional Initiatives that Each and Every
Student Will: Demonstrate proficiency in literacy, math and science; Graduate high school,
meet college academic distribution requirement and earn the equivalent of 20 college credits
and/or professional certification; Be prepared to lead a positive and productive life through
the development of interpersonal skills and a commitment to the community in a systematic
and integrated way.
My theory of action shifted to the following goals that require a strategic plan and, if
accomplished, will result in improved educational outcomes for students in special
education and practices by teachers and leaders that are aligned:
Increase access to general education/core curriculum for students with IEPs.
Decrease the achievement gap between students in special education and students in
general education.
Provide alternatives to suspension/expulsion for students with IEPs.
Eliminate disproportionate use of suspension/expulsion for Black & Hispanic students
with IEPs.
Eliminate the over identification of Black and Hispanic students in special education.
Eliminate the over-representation of students of color with IEPs for specific disability
categories.

The following body of work is an integration of my Cycle of Inquiry into an authentic
product for the district: Special Education Annual Report to the Board of Directors.
Some of the format is dictated by how the Board wanted the information laid out.


3
Special Education
Annual Report to the Bellevue School District
Board of Directors
Jean Anthony, Executive Director for Special Education
June 2014
Bellevue School District Mission: To provide all students with an exemplary college preparatory
education so they can succeed in college, career, and life.

Description and purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Board of Directors an annual summary
of the activities and progress in the special education department during the 2013-14
school year. Much of the work this year has focused on the results of the Study of Special
Education (Public Consulting Group, 2013), which was commissioned by the Bellevue
School District in the spring of 2013. The study identified strategic areas for improvement
and resulted in broad and deep recommendations for the special education department as
well as the district as a whole. In the fall of 2013, an Implementation Team was established
by the Executive Director and includes members from the parent community as well as
staff from a multitude of roles within the district. This report will highlight the activities of
the Special Education department primarily through our understanding of the needs of
students in special education and the work of the Implementation Team.
Bellevue School District is committed to providing excellent special education
services. A group of staff and parents, who make up the Implementation Team, have been
carefully reviewing the desired changes from the 2013 Study of Special Education Services.
(Public Consulting Group, 2013) A team facilitator was hired to help manage the work, and

4
four task forces have been formed. The task force work areas include: Teaching and
Learning, Referral and Eligibility, Systems and Accountability and Response to Intervention
(RtI)/ Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS).
Although not mentioned in the report, the Implementation Team believes that an
approach focused on continuous improvement and teamwork is necessary for our staff,
families and community members to be successful. The Implementation Team is now
working to complete their plan. The team will share a summary of the actions taken,
additional recommendations and next steps in December 2014.
Connection to District Mission and Vision:
Indicators of academic achievement for students in special education have produced
unacceptable levels of success. Results from state and district testing, including Star,
indicate that students in special education achieve at much lower rates than students in
general education.

6 4 8
7
11
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

Adjusted 5-Year Graduation Rate
All Students compared to Students in Special
Education
Bellevue School District
Cohort Continuing Rate
Cohort Drop-Out Rate
Adjusted Graduation
Rate

5
Graduation rates are also below the district average.
1
Between the years of 2011, 2012 and
2013, students in special education graduated at a rate of 10% to 18% less when compared to
the rate of all students. Students in special education were 2%-6% more likely to drop out and
were more than 5 times as likely to continue in the Bellevue School District beyond a 5
th
year of
high school.
In order to improve our students success rates, the Implementation Team as well
as other key groups (such as the special education administration, Leadership Advisory
and JobAlike teams) is grappling with how to operationalize the goal of exemplary college
preparatory education. What does that mean for each and every student? How do we
design individualized instructional programs that align with this goal and provide evidence
of improvement? These are the kinds of questions we plan to answer as the work evolves.
Key Initiatives & Goals:
The 2013-14 school year has been one of extensive learning in a fast-paced
environment. As the completely new special education administrative team (SpEd Team)
began to form in the summer of 2013, members started to unpack the structures,
resources, history, and nuances of the Bellevue School District; particularly in special
education. Through our investigation that included interviews, observations and data

1
Adjusted Cohort Calculation (new method) The adjusted cohort methodology follows a single cohort of
students over four and five years, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Education. This method makes no
modification for students whose expected graduation timeframe is longer than four years. In other words, it
does not allow cohort reassignment for special education or limited English proficiency students. The
calculation also adjusts for students who transferred into a Washington public high school for the first time
and joined the cohort. Similarly, students who are confirmed transfers out of public school in Washington are
removed from the calculation. The key is that students are placed in a cohort based strictly on their first time
entering ninth grade; thus it is a more rigorous metric than Washingtons traditional graduation calculation.
Students are permitted to take additional time to graduate, but will not be counted as on-time graduates if it
takes more than four years complete, and will not be considered five-year graduates if they take longer than
five years. The adjusted cohort method is outlined in the Non-Regulatory Guidance issued by No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) for all states beginning with school year 2010-11. A copy of the Guidance can be found at
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/hsgrguidance.pdf. (Source: AppendixFDistrictAdjusted5year-6.xlsx
found at http://www.k12.wa.us/DataAdmin/default.aspx June 2014).

6
analysis, several overarching themes quickly emerged as areas of focus. Four pillars have
emerged as the framework through which the SpEd Team provides leadership and
conducts the work of continuous improvement: 1) making decisions and finding solutions
by remaining focused on meeting the needs of students; 2) looking at and understanding
our work within the goals of the Instructional Initiatives; 3) examining and questioning our
work through the lens of Racial Equity; and 4) integrating compliance with program
improvement.
Bright spots included the robust resources of special education personnel and
curriculum, highly qualified staff, and a district focused on providing excellence for each
and every student as evidenced by the Instructional Initiatives
2
and the Equity Plan
Framework.
3
Our goals within the special education department include analyzing and
eliminating the unintended consequences of the direct instruction curriculum (see Figure
1, Changes in Least Restrictive Environment), increasing collaboration and
interdependency between special education, schools and central office departments,
improving communication and collaboration with both parents/families and staff, and
eliminating disproportionate representation (either over or under) of specific racial/ethnic
groups in special education (see Figures 3-8, which includes discipline data) while
increasing academic success, college and career readiness and preparedness to lead
positive and productive lives.

2
Instructional Initiatives: Academic Success, College and Career Ready, Positive and Productive Life
3
Equity Plan Framework: An equitable and excellent school district is one in which all students achieve high levels of
academic success, regardless of any students race, ethnicity, culture, country of origin, religion, gender, special needs,
sexual orientation, neighborhood, income of parents or mother tongue. In an equitable and excellent school district, there
are no persistent patterns of differences in the academic achievement or treatment of students grouped by race, ethnicity,
culture, country of origin, religion, gender, special needs, sexual orientation, neighborhood, income of parents or mother
tongue. Equity and excellence occur when each and every student is served effectively to achieve at high levels. (Source:
http://www.bsd405.org/about-us/departments/equity.aspx, June 2014)

7
Identified Metrics:
When analyzing performance of students in special education, it is difficult to adopt
or even adapt the same metrics used for all students due to the individuality of the IEP as
well as the relatively small number of students at any given school. Therefore, in
collaboration with the Research and Assessment department, we are developing answers
to the question: What makes a good system of measurement of academic success, college
and career readiness and positive and productive life for students in special education and
for the department as a whole?
There are, however, a number of standard metrics that can be utilized. They include
Changes in the Least Restrictive Environment (Figure 1), Annual Measurable Objectives
(Figure 2) and data regarding the district performance for Indicators 4
4
, 9
5
and 10
6
. The
federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) measures State performance based on
20 Indicators. OSPI, in turn, reviews and measures districts against the 20 Indicators. The
high-risk indicators for disproportionate representation, which OSPI monitors carefully,
are Indicators 4, 9 and 10 (Figures 3-9).

4
Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A. percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days for students with IEPs; and B. percent of districts that have: (a) a
significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions greater than 10 days in a school
year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do
not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
5
Indicator 9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education
and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
6
Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability
categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
(Source: http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/Data/SPP-APR/2014.aspx June 2014)

8

Figure 1:

Goal: increased access to general education/core curriculum for students with IEPs.
Special education is reviewing the impact of the direct instruction curriculum on the
Least Restrictive Environment data. The chart in Figure 1 shows the changes in the rates
students with IEPs in our district are accessing time in general education from 2006-07 to
2013-14. The blue bar indicates the percent of students who spend 80-100% of their time
in general education, the red indicates 40-79% in general education, the green 0-39% and
the purple is a combination of other placement factors such as private school, home school
and home/hospital instruction. Since the 2006-07 school year, the data shows that we
50
46
41
40 40
35
29
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

i
n

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

Bellevue School District Special Education
Changes in Least Restrictive Environment
80-100%
40-79%
0-39%
other
Time in
General
Educatio

9
have steadily reduced the percent of students who spend 80-100% (blue bar) of their time
in general education from 50% of the students with IEPs to 30% in 2013-14. Conversely,
there has been an increase in the percent of students who spend 40-79% (red bar) of their
time in general education from 23% in 2006-07 to 42% in 2013-14. When students spend
less time in general education, they have less access to the core curriculum and general
education peers, which can lead to widening the achievement gap.
Figure 2:

Goal: decrease the achievement gap between students in special education and
students in general education.
Figure 2 shows the results for 2012-13 and is representative of the AMO results for
2011-12 as well (Note: AMO data was only collected for school years 2011-12 and 2012-13).
The Reading and Math Proficiency targets for students in special education are significantly
lower than for all students and the performance for BSD students in special education falls
short in both areas. In 2012-13, the Reading Proficiency for students with IEPs was 42.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Reading
Proficiency
Reading Target Math
Proficiency
Math Target
BSD Annual Measurable Objectives 2012-13
Percent Proficient
All
Special Education

10
while the Reading Target (expected performance) was 44.5%. Math Proficiency was 34%
for students with IEPs while the Math Target was 42.2%.

Figure 3:

Goal: provide alternatives to suspension/expulsion for students with IEPs.
The information displayed in Figure 3 shows the rate of suspension and expulsions
for students with IEPs and is collected annually for all districts by OSPI. Disproportionate
use of suspensions and expulsions for students with IEPs is historically and nationally an
area of high risk. The blue bar shows the rate as a percent for BSD and the red bar shows
the State threshold (that is, the district would be identified for disproportionality if its rates
exceeded the State Single Bar). Overall, the BSD rates remain well below the State Single
0.63
0.45
1.27
3.7
3.76
3.58
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Indicator 4.A. Bellevue School District Suspension/expulsion
rates for students with IEPs (in percents)
District % Single State Bar

11
Bar. Figures 4 looks at specific information about discipline rates for students with IEPs by
race/ethnicity and reveals a different story.

Figure 4:

Goal: eliminate disproportionate use of suspension/expulsion for Black & Hispanic
students with IEPs.
While Indicator 4.A. examines the overall rate of suspension and expulsion for
students with IEPs, Indicator 4.B. (Figure 4) displays the suspension and expulsion rates by
race and ethnicity for the last three years of available data (2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-
13). In this chart it is evident that students with IEPs who are Black as well as those who
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Indicator 4.B. Percent of BSD students with IEPs
suspended/expelled by race and ethnicity
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13

12
are Hispanic are disproportionately disciplined. For example, in 2012-13, suspensions and
expulsions for Black students with IEPs made up 5.6% of all students suspended and
expelled. The percent of Black students with IEPs in the Bellevue School District in 2012-
13 was approximately 0.006% (N=107) of the entire student enrollment. District wide
work to address this disproportionality is imperative.
Figures 5-8 are based on a Weighted Risk Ratio (WWR)
7
, which is a formula created
by OSPI to calculate the likelihood that students from specific racial and ethnic groups will
be identified for specific disabilities. OSPI provides the following explanation:
Figure 5:

7
The weighted risk ratio is a measure of the risk that a student from a specific racial/ethnic group
will be served in a specific disability category compared to the risk of all other students being
served in that category. For example, a weighted risk ratio of 1.00 means that students from that
group are as likely to be served in the category as all other students. A weighted risk ratio greater
than 1.00 indicates the degree to which students in the racial/ethnic group are over-represented.
Therefore, a weighted risk ratio of 4.17 in the EBD-Black category means that Black students in the
district are 4.17 times more likely to be identified in the EBD category than all other students. A
weighted risk ratio less than 1.00 indicates the degree to which students from the racial/ethnic
group are under-represented. For example, a weighted risk ratio of 0.50 in the ID-Hispanic
category means that Hispanic students in the district are half as likely to be identified in the ID
disability category as all other students. (Source:
http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/ProgramReview/Disproportionality.aspx)


13

Goal: Eliminate the over identification of Black and Hispanic students in special
education.
Overall, Figure 5 indicates that over the last three years of available data, the risk for
over identifying students from specific racial and ethnic groups for special education in
general falls within the At Risk for Disproportionate Over-representation for students
who are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (in 2012-13), Black (not Hispanic) and Hispanic
as the Weighted Risk Ratio (WWR) is >1.5 to <2.0. It is important to note, however, that
some of our racial/ethnic groups have an n size of less than 10 students with IEPs, which
is not statistically reliable. Figure 5 also indicates that students with IEPs who are Asian,
White (not Hispanic) and Two or More Races are disproportionately under-represented.
OSPI does not currently ask districts to address under-representation. In Bellevue,
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Indicator 9: BSD Identification for Special Education (All
Disabilities) Weighted Risk Ratio
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14

14
however, there is an interest to understand under-representation of certain racial and
ethnic groups in special education in relation to the work we are doing around Equity.
The following three figures each display the same data for different years. Figure 6
displays the WRR for identification of specific racial and ethnic groups for specific disability
categories in the 2011-12 school year. Figure 7 does the same for 2012-13 and Figure 8 for
2013-14. These figures will be summarized together under Figure 8. An important note,
statistically speaking, is that the n for American Indian/Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander is less than 10 for each of the years displayed. For example, in
2011-12, the alarming WWR of 8.45 for American Indian/Alaska Native as Emotional
Behavioral Disability (EBD) represents 2 students. Similarly, the n for Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders in the eligibility categories of Autism (WWR of 4.24) and
Specific Learning Disability (WRR of 2.61) is 2 and 3 respectively in 2013-14.

Figure 6:

15

Figure 7:

Figure 8:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Indicator 10: BSD Identification for Specific Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
Weighted Risk Ratio 2011-12
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Black (not Hispanic)
Hispanic
White (not Hispanic)
Two or More Races
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Indicator 10: BSD Identification for Specific Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity
Weighted Risk Ratio 2012-13

American Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Hispanic

16

Goal: eliminate the over-representation of students of color with IEPs for specific
disability categories.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 indicate a persistent and discouraging trend in the over-
identification of Black (not Hispanic) and Hispanic students in the specific disability
categories of Emotional Behavioral Disability and Specific Learning Disability. Additionally,
the 2013-14 data in Figure 8 indicates over-identification of students who are Black (not
Hispanic) as Health Impaired and Intellectually Disabled and Hispanic students as Specific
Learning Disabled.
It is the goal of the work described below to eliminate disproportionate
representation in special education, to increase academic achievement, college and career
readiness, preparedness for leading positive and productive lives, and to increase access to
the least restrict environment for students with IEPs. These metrics can be revisited
throughout future years.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Indicator 10: BSD Indentification for Specific Disabilities by
Race/Ethnicity Weighted Risk Ratio 2013-14
American Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Hispanic
Two or More Races

17
Timelines and Implementation:
The Implementation Team (as described earlier) recognizes that it must prioritize
the recommendations and its work to be effective and efficient. Some recommendations
and actions are fast track and others are long-term. The Teaching and Learning and
Eligibility and Referral Task Forces are involved in creating implementation plans to
address recommendations within the report. The Implementation team supports the task
forces by helping them:
Debrief their meetings and identify challenges in content or process.
Strategize solutions.
Plan upcoming meetings.
Anticipate future issues.
Communicate recommendations and solutions to District administration and the
broader school/district community.

Although not mentioned in the report and recommendations, to be successful, the
Implementation Team believes that a mindset focused on continuous improvement and
collaboration is essential for our staff, families, and community members. The
Implementation Team has determined that there is no single approach that will create this
mindset and is in the process of laying out specific recommendations to accomplish this. A
preliminary plan will be included in the December 2014 update.
Recommendations from the PCG Special Education Review, activities and timelines
are listed below.

THEME RECOMMENDATION ACTIVITIES TIMELINE

18
M
u
l
t
i
-
T
i
e
r
e
d

S
y
s
t
e
m
s

o
f

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

(
M
T
S
S
)

Build on BSDs
curricular framework
to develop/implement
a framework of multi-
tiered systems of
support (MTSS) for
academic
achievement, positive
behavior, and
social/emotional
growth (including
enrichment) for all
students.
The Response to
Intervention/Multi-Tiered Systems
of Support Policy 2163 & 2163P
review has been completed.
Principals trained in MTSS.
Committee formed to launch district
wide work.
The Special Education department
will continue to collaborate with the
Curriculum department as the MTSS
work continues
April 2014

2014-15
and on-
going
H
i
g
h

R
i
s
k

D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
r
e
a
s

Target activities to
assess practices for
students with
disabilities in high-risk
areas to inform future
practices and to
support appropriate
special education
evaluation referrals
for students in areas of
possible over/under
identification.
A group of ELL specialists,
Psychologists & Counseling staff
received training in the ELL Critical
Data Matrix protocol, which
specifically addresses the
challenges associated with
distinguishing between language
differences and disabilities.
Subsequently, the group adapted
this protocol to meet the needs in
BSD. An overview & training was
given to district administrators in
February 2014 and throughout
April, all school Guidance Teams
were provided training in the use of
the ELL Critical Data Matrix.
Guidance Teams are now
implementing its use.
As a part of the districts long range
Equity Plan, specific modules from
Pacific Education Group have been
developed for the special education
staff to dive deeper into equity
issues around race, ethnicity and
special education. These modules
will begin in the 2014-15 school
year.
2012-
2014

2014-16
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

Communicate
information contained
in the special
education manual
through differentiated
Redesign of the Special Education
Share Point site to create the
infrastructure and provide training
to staff on how to access the
multitude of resources posted.
2013-15


19
training for various
stakeholder groups
(including parents of
students with/or
believed to have
disabilities).
A subset of the Special Education
Leadership Advisory team has been
assembled to update the Procedural
Manual.
Each Para Educator has been
provided an additional 30 minutes
per week of non-student contact
time in order to plan with special
education teachers and receive
relevant on-the-job professional
development. The district has
subscribed to Paraeducator.com in
order to provide basic training
modules for each Para Educator.
Initial trainings have been
conducted. Para Educators have had
two paid training opportunities in
the 2013-14 school year.
Professional Development for
special education staff has been
designed and scheduled for the
2014-15 school year to include
topics such as Executive
Functioning, Collaborative
Communication, IEP Writing with
the CCSS in Mind, Maximizing Para
Educators in the Classroom, and
Integrating Communication Goals
into Everyday Activities.
Principals and other building
administrators have identified their
need for specialized training in
special education, including
compliance (the IEP process),
program development, support and
supervision of students and special
education staff, and understanding
disabilities. Opportunities to
provide this training are being
investigated.
Continue training staff on the
implementation of Right Response
and use of sensory integration as
alternatives to the use of restraint
and isolation techniques.
Summer-
Fall 2014

2013-15

2014-15

2014-15

2014-16
and on-
going

20
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
i
o
n

Develop a system to
identify early students
not on track to
graduate.

Set a goal and act to
have no student with
an IEP drop out of high
school.
Collaborative work with the newly
hired Leader of Graduation Success
along with the Director of Research
& Accountability will target
assessing the needs as well as
developing systems for identifying
and intervening.
Specific measurements and targets
for zero dropouts need to be
established.
2014-15

2014-15
S
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
s

Collect and analyze
suspension data
comparing students
with/without IEPs to
determine the extent
to which MTSS and
Specially Designed
Instruction (SDI) is
effectively reducing
the time students are
out of school or classes
because of
misconduct.
In concert with the work on Positive
Behavior Intervention Systems,
100% graduation for students with
IEPs, and the development of MTSS,
this work will be collaborative.
2014-16
C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m

C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l

C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m

With a consultant who
is an expert in the
Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and
the education of
students with IEPs,
form a working group
with BSD
representatives from
special education,
curriculum &
instruction, and
principals from
various grade levels
and schools with
Special Programs.
Examine BSDs service
delivery model for
Specially Designed
Instruction (SDI) and
Special Education Instructional
Technology Curriculum
Leader/Developer (ITCL), Program
Coordinators and Special Education
Administration have researched
and attended trainings on CCSS and
special education. Professional
Development for 2014-15 has been
designed and will be launched
August 2014.
School teams are designing
additional flexible, individualized
programs that provide SDI through
the adaptation of core curriculum as
well as through the special
education direct instruction
curriculum. See Professional
Learning above and Special
Programs below.

2013-15

2013-15


21
consider alternative
models that would
enable students to
access research-based
interventions and
receive more
instruction in general
education core
curricular classes with
the support of special
educators/related
service providers.
Review the tools
currently in use to
assess the extent to
which students are
benefitting from SDI to
establish expectations
regarding regular
collection, problem-
solving, and changes
to instruction
necessary to support
student achievement
and social/emotional
growth.

In partnership with Research &
Accountability and Information
Technology, examine current tools
and research ways to access this
information in a systematic and
user-friendly way to further
analysis and problem-solving.

2014-15
P
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

Establish an
expectation that the
great majority of
preschool children
with IEPs will be
educated alongside
their nondisabled
peers through an
integrated service
model that has no
more half the children
in the class with an
IEP.
Collaborative planning with the
Early Learning department resulted
in changing the fee structure in
order to attract more typically
developing peers into the integrated
preschool program.
Future work is underway to create
blended Early Learning/Special
Education preschool classrooms in
multiple locations throughout the
school district.
In partnership with the UW Haring
Center, Dr. Ilene Schwartz & Dr.
Jennifer Fang, a follow up study on
the effectiveness and efficacy of
Project DATA (extended day) in the
PALS Plus program for students
with Autism to further
understanding of effective and
May 2014

2014-15

Summer
2014-
Summer
2015

22
sustainable programs for early
intervention for young children
with Autism.
T
w
i
c
e

E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l

Investigate the model
used by Northshore
School District and
other evidence
supporting effective
instruction for twice
exceptional students.
Research will commence in fall of
2014.
2014-15
S
p
e
c
i
a
l

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

Expand Technical
Assistance Team
(TAT) and teacher
access to them.
Expand student access
(as appropriate) to
Applied Behavior
Analysis (ABA) in
elementary schools.

Establish a clear
expectation that all
students in Special
Programs will be
provided with
opportunities to
interact with
nondisabled peers,
and that IEPs will
incorporate this
expectation to the
maximum extent
appropriate.
Current plans are to maintain TAT
staffing and function.

The district maintains a
collaborative contractual
relationship with Dr. Felice Orlich,
an expert in the field of children
with Autism. Additionally, this year
the district established a contract
with a Board Certified Behavior
Analyst (BCBA) from the University
of Washington Haring Center for
Applied Research & Training in
Education.
Research and professional
development on increasing student
access to general education has
resulted in Lake Hills, Stevenson &
Odle piloting Co-Teaching models
beginning in 2014-15. With support
and encouragement from Special
Education, many schools are finding
co-teaching opportunities to
leverage increased access to core
instruction for students with IEPs.
2012-14

2013-15
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

Enhance collaboration
between BSD
Departments to
leverage resource and
expertise.
Maximize Special
Services special
education support to
schools by increasing
Strengthening partnerships and
collaborative work has been
facilitated by the reorganization and
realignment of the special education
administration.
The department now has four
Supervisors compared with three in
2012-13 and has added Program
Coordinators; one dedicated to
2013-14

2013-14


23
communication.

Update BSDs special
education manual to
support current and
user-friendly access to
procedures/practices
relevant to the
management/operatio
n of special education.
Olympic (Autism) and a half-time
coordinator dedicated to Transition
Services (18-21 year olds).
Special education supervisors have
assisted IEP teams through the use
of a neutral third party (Sound
Options) with multiple families in
the 2013-14 school year.
Additionally, a team of special
education teachers/staff, principals
and a supervisor participated in an
8-day training on Facilitated IEP
Meetings.
A summer work team has been
established to complete this work.

2013-14
and on-
going

Summer &
Fall 2014
S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g

Reallocate or add
resources to ensure
that BSD expectations
regarding the
provision of Specially
Designed Instruction
(SDI)/related services
are reasonably
capable of being met.
The Class Size/Caseload Committee
work resulted in specific
recommendations for special
education, some of which will be
implemented in 2014-15.
Increased certificated FTE is
planned for 2014-15 in order to
lower teacher-student ratio,
bringing more access to students.
Additionally, the special education
administration is working with
teachers and IEP teams to bring
more program Para Educator
support in order to enhance
instructional opportunities for
students.
2013-14

2014-15
A
s
s
i
s
t
i
v
e

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

Review and revise, as
appropriate, BSDs
assistive technology
(AT) criteria and
procedures.
Clerical support has been provided
to update the inventory and lending
library systems in order to allow the
AT specialists more time to work
with staff, students and families
2013-14
Transpo
rtation
Review the current
process for discussing
issues of concern
regarding students
with transportation as
a related service, and
how the issues may be
addressed more
effectively/timely.
Increased communication with the
Transportation department has
improved experiences for students
and staff. However, trouble-
shooting needs to be addressed
more thoroughly.
2013-15

24
F
a
m
i
l
y

I
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

Enhance
communication with
parents/families by
improving the
BSD/Special Education
websites, establishing
a standard for
visitations for children
having/thought to
have a disability and
resolving disputes.
The website has been redesigned
and now includes information on
the work of the Implementation
Team as well as family and
community education events.
The policy and procedures on
observations and visits has been
updated.
Special education administration
and other staff attend and provide
presentations to the Bellevue
Special Needs PTA. Special
education staff continues to
organize and sponsor additional
community education events on
topics of interest to families of
students with disabilities.
2013-14
and on-
going

April 2014

2013-14
and on-
going
R
e
s
u
l
t
s

D
r
i
v
e
n

A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Establish a system of
accountability to
support BSDs mission
to provide each and
every student with an
exemplary college
preparatory education
so they can succeed in
college, career, and
life; and goals for each
and every student to
reach/exceed
academic proficiency,
and to eliminate the
achievement gap.
Collaboration with Research &
Accountability to find answers to
the question: What makes a good
system of measurement of academic
success, college and career readiness
and positive and productive life for
students in special education and for
the department as a whole?

2013-15

Communication Process:

25
The special education website has been redesigned to provide information in a more
comprehensible manner. Updates from the department, including information regarding
the work of the Implementation Team, are posted there. At the end of each
Implementation Team meeting, for example, key communication points are articulated and
eventually uploaded to the website. Collaborative work with the Communications
Department has facilitated these improvements. Additionally, parent and community
information/training events are provided by special education staff and advertised on the
website. The special education administrative team works closely with individual families,
IEP teams, and school staff to problem-solve and provide information about services and
compliance. The Special Education Leadership Advisory Team meets monthly to plan and
problem-solve as well as serve as two-way communicators by surfacing critical issues and
relaying accurate information back to staff and other key stakeholders.
All stakeholders impacted:
Early on in my tenure, the superintendent, as well as several principals and other
staff, described the perception of a culture of mistrust and fear between special education
staff and families. There was a general sense that decisions were made in order to avoid
conflict and litigation. In fact, there were three due process filings in process when I joined
the district in July 2013, which is a high number for a district of our size.
According to the Office of the Education Ombuds
8
, the Bellevue School District has
the second highest number of cases for all the 19 school districts in King County

8
The Role of the Washington State Ombuds The Office of the Education Ombuds has a unique role in the State of Washington. It
functions as the quality control mechanism for the public education system. OEO is an efficient management and cost-saving tool. By
resolving complaints efficiently and effectively, OEO prevents costly lawsuits and administrative hearings. OEO is an early warning
system for public education. We collect data, identify trends and patterns in education and make policy recommendations to elected
officials. OEO Ombudsmen also make recommendations to school districts and parents to prevent some student problems from re-
occurring.

26
(unpublished data, June 2014). The mean is 14 and the average is 19. In 2013-14 alone,
cases involving special education in Bellevue (28) were twice the mean for the entire
county (14). Over the last three years, the percent of Bellevue cases that involved special
education rose from 38% in 2011-12 to 69% and 70% in 2012-13 and 2013-14
respectively.
Bellevue School
District
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
All Cases 23 39 40
Special Education 8 27 28
Client Contact 60 181 197
School/District Contact 11 35 27
Meeting Attendance N/A 10 27
This data gives us one way to measure how well families and staff are working
together and can be a measure for how we are doing in regards to building relational trust
with our families (Bryk and Schneider, 2003). Through partnerships and collaboration
with parents and staff and through the work of the Implementation Team, we believe that
we are starting to make a difference. Tracking our progress through data from the
Ombuds office is one indicator that will help us measure improved relationships with
families on behalf of students in special education.
Not all stakeholders are well represented in our work. One key set of stakeholders
that is significantly absent from the body of this report is the student group. As the special
education team launches the 2014-15 school year, we must ask ourselves: How do we listen


27
to, understand and take into consideration the voice of our students? Another group whose
presence is not as significant as it should are our parents and families who are English
Language Learners. Clearly, our work is not done and we look forward to a productive and
successful 2014-15.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Print Sources:

28
Bryk, Anthony S., and Barbara Schneider. "Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for School
Reform. Educational Leadership 60.6 (2003): 40-44.
Public Consulting Group. Study of Special Education Services for the Bellevue School
District, June 7, 2013. Unpublished.

Internet Sources:
Bellevue School District: www.bsd405.org
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction: www.k12.wa.us

Anthony Coi Y2 Final July2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Anthony Coi Y2 Final July2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthony Coi Y2 Final July2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jean Anthony COI Final July 2014

Reflections on the Year 2 Cycle of Inquiry:

You might also like