RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE

Transcription

1 RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE Re-Imagining the Role of Special Education Local Plan Areas The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) creates a fundamental shift in the focus and delivery of public education in California. LEAs are empowered to drive local engagement and decision-making about how funds are allocated and services are delivered, with a focus on improved educational outcomes for all students. Incorporating special education into the LCFF framework has proven challenging. This report offers a plan for overcoming that challenge. This new, bold vision for California s special education system is guided by the principles of equity, local decision-making, accountability, transparency and alignment. The focus is on high quality local implementation of evidence-based practices for educational improvement and inclusive practices for all students with disabilities (SWD). This vision has naturally led to a reevaluation of current systems and structures to determine alignment and propose changes that will bring about a truly integrated educational system One System for All Students. Achieving this vision for SWD will require significant support for local implementers. The scope and magnitude of these changes create a challenge the state and LEAs simply cannot manage alone. Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) are positioned to provide the support needed to facilitate these changes: stature as trusted partners, the structures and expertise needed to champion new thinking within LEAs, the standing to deepen existing and foster new relationships with essential stakeholders, and the ability to measure and report outcomes for SWDs. For nearly forty years SELPAs, in partnership with the State, have been providing programs, services, and support to students and LEAs, including the successful implementation of a myriad of federal and state education reform efforts. This well-established framework represents a huge investment of resources. Reaching every corner of the state, SELPAs trusted, effective and high-quality LEA support partners are ready to help make California s new vision for one locally-controlled system a reality. The vision of One System for All Students is bold. The scale of change called for is significant. The economic, political and social reality is that the SELPA framework must be leveraged to effectively bring about the necessary changes. To achieve the vision, the membership of the SELPA Association offers the five recommendations presented in this report to re-envision the role of SELPAs as agents of strategic change, in partnership with the state and LEAs. By working together, all of California s students can emerge as informed citizens, drivers of the state s economic growth and prosperity, and essential contributors. Re-imagining the role of SELPAs will require a unity of purpose and action by stakeholders at all levels. Acting on the recommendations presented in this document starts with a shared recognition of the vital role SELPAs are playing, will play and can play in the evolution toward One System for All Students, along with a commitment to take advantage of the possibilities. DRAFT 1

2 Summary of Recommendations Recommendation 1: Establish a renewed working relationship between CDE and SELPAs that is based on well-defined roles and expectations, includes implementing systems for clear communication, and is characterized by active and continuous collaboration. Recommendation 2: Commit to developing and adopting a flexible, but meaningful, system of SELPA accountability in partnership with CDE. CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION TEACHER QUALITY SELPA DATA INNOVATIONS LCAP ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHOICE & OPTIONS STUDENT SUPPORT/ ENGAGEMENT FUNDING RESOURCE ALLOCATION 1: Recommendation 3: Designate SELPAs as the state s primary provider of special education support for LEAs, a role that should be reflected in the State Systemic Improvement Plan. Recommendation 4: Increase SELPA support for LEAs in local initiatives aligned with the Local Accountability Plan priorities incorporating special education performance and compliance indicators. Recommendation 5: Fund SELPAs and LEAs at appropriate and equal levels commensurate with fulfilling the mandates and expectations defined by federal and state law. Detail of Recommendations Recommendation 1: Establish a renewed working relationship between CDE and SELPAs that is based on well-defined roles and expectations, includes implementing systems for clear communication, and is characterized by active and continuous collaboration. We believe the SELPA role should be two-fold: DRAFT 2

3 1. To support CDE with information, research, and experience-based support as it sets the direction and strategic design for California s education system; and 2. To provide direct technical assistance and support to enable LEAs to better understand the challenges they face, identify evidence-based solutions, and enhance their continuous improvement efforts. CDE and SELPAs should collaboratively consider actions to create a stronger, more impactful partnership: Revisit two-way communication between CDE and SELPAs to further strengthen alignment. SELPAs can gather ideas and innovations from LEAs and schools to inform state strategy, while the state can convey information through SELPAs regarding goals, objectives and state initiatives to guide local actions. CDE and SELPA leadership should participate in regular quarterly status meetings to maintain open communication, identify challenges, develop solutions and refine strategies to accomplish state goals. Position SELPAs to serve as critical thought partners to CDE, helping to identify and elevate the evidence-based approaches and interventions most successful for achieving strong student outcomes in schools and LEAs. SELPAs can leverage their relationships across the state to support replication of model practices and programs. Recommendation 2: Commit to developing and adopting a flexible, but meaningful, system of SELPA accountability in partnership with CDE. SELPAs and CDE would need to develop metrics directly aligned to the state s overall vision to help them chart the course to success. The intent is to keep the accountability precise, efficient, meaningful and transparent. The system could be improved and refined over time as common approaches emerge that link specific activities to improvement outcomes. The SELPA accountability system should incorporate a small number of meaningful metrics defined individually by each SELPA. Ultimately, schools, LEAs and the public should have uniform and consistent information that allows them to gauge the accomplishments of all SELPAs. The SELPA accountability systems should be based on the following performance standards: 1. Accountable SELPAs are responsible and answerable to CDE and the Superintendent, the Legislature, the SELPA Governing Board, stakeholders, and the public. Accountability comes in many forms and is apparent in all aspects of SELPAs daily business. 2. Communication SELPAs communicate with internal and external stakeholders in a manner that is clear, concise, and accurate. 3. Cost Effective SELPA decisions and business transactions have a greater benefit than cost. 4. Service Oriented SELPAs demonstrate putting students, parents, LEAs and partners at the center of everything. 5. Efficient SELPAs maximize resources and funding allocated to the SELPA. 6. Focused on Improvement of Student Performance SELPAs focus is student, school, LEA, and charter school performance, both academically and financially. SELPAs stress the importance of LEA improvement in activities, products, and services developed and provided to member LEAs. DRAFT 3

4 7. Teamwork SELPAs operate as a statewide system with a unified approach to improve public education across the state in alignment with regionally-developed strategic plans designed to meet the unique needs of the LEAs within the SELPA. 8. Transparent SELPAs ensure facts, figures, and processes are visible, predictable, and understood by the public. Sample SELPA Performance Indicators The SELPA accountability system should include the following components reported annually: The number of consulting and technical assistance contact hours delivered to school LEAs. Contact hours include face-to-face, telephone, , or other electronic media. (PS- 4,6,8) Special education funding related technical assistance provided to school LEAs. The types of products and services provided to school LEAs are listed and the total number of contact hours related to special education funding technical assistance. (PS- 1,2,4,6,8) The number of LEAs participating in cooperative agreements in the region. SELPAs provide a listing and description of cooperative agreements provided to school LEAs in the SELPA (PS- 3,4,5,8) Identified audit findings of the administrative unit related to the SELPA. If necessary, will implement a corrective action plan to resolve all identified findings within 60 days. (PS- 4,6,8) A personnel report including FTE count, job titles, descriptions, and salaries for each employee. (PS- 1,8) All sources of funding received and amounts expended from federal, state, local, private, and public entities. The annual budget report shall also include a description of how state and federal funds are distributed to member LEAs. (PS-3,8) Annual Service Improvement Plans (this would replace current Annual Service Plan reporting requirements). Each SELPA s plan could include the following: regional data analysis; regional demographics and contributing factors; improvement plan, which may include interventions, strategies, activities and tactics; and the purpose and description of new products and services developed and provided. Products and services included in the regionally focused Annual Service Improvement Plan are those specific to increasing student performance. (PS- 1,4,6,8) Professional development opportunities provided to LEAs, administrators, teachers and parents. Extended professional development opportunities include but are not limited to classroom observations and feedback, co-teaching/demonstration teaching, professional learning communities, instructional coaching, distance learning, and action research cohorts. SELPAs would also report a summary of one professional development opportunity that has been especially effective in impacting student performance. (PS- 4,6,8) DRAFT 4

5 Satisfaction survey rates are determined by an annual SELPA Satisfaction Survey. Responses included in the survey will be at the superintendent level of LEA administration, but will include input from teachers, school administrators, and other workshop participants. Customer satisfaction for core services will be measured at a minimum in the following areas: 1. SELPA Governance 2. Training, updates, and technical assistance to LEA related to evidence based practices to increase student achievement. 3. Training and assistance to school LEAs regarding management of special education funding sources. 4. Support and assistance for LEAs and campuses, designated as Significantly Disproportionate. 5. Assistance specifically designed for an LEA that is considered out of compliance with state or federal special education requirements. 6. Training, overview sessions, and assistance in complying with state and federal special education guidelines for LEA staff. 7. Training, technical assistance, updates, and overviews in support of CASEMIS and CALPADS reporting requirements. PS- 4,6,8) All grants and contracts over the amount of $100,000 that are received from any entity (includes federal, state, local, and private entities). The report includes the granting or contracting entity name, the amount of the grant or contract, the purpose of the grant or contract, and the effective beginning and ending grant or contract date. (PS- 1,4,5,8) The number of partnerships with other SELPAs, COEs and external entities to expand and/or enhance product and service offerings to LEAs. (PS-5,6,7) Other program measures: Every SELPA should exercise flexibility to determine a small number of measures of progress and success for each program or service offered. Each SELPA could present measures that may include input measures (e.g., number of participants), process measures (e.g., hours of professional development provided), participant satisfaction (e.g., participant responses to surveys about the impact of professional development), and outcome measures (as appropriate and feasible) that reflect changes in practice and other improvements. Recommendation 3: Designate SELPAs as the state s primary provider of special education support for LEAs, a role that should be reflected in the State Systematic Improvement Plan. Recommendation 4: Increase SELPA support for LEAs in local initiatives aligned with the Local Accountability Plans and priorities incorporating special education performance and compliance indicators. The 2015 California Special Education Taskforce report envisioned a unified educational system operating as a coherent system, recognizing that improvements in special education will improve education for all students. With this target in mind, the state should leverage SELPAs to provide both DRAFT 5

6 direct supports to schools to help align multiple school-based improvement efforts into a cohesive, sustainable plan for LEA improvement. We know from experience that no two schools are alike. SELPAs have a strong track record of delivering high-quality services to help LEAs make progress on their unique improvement journeys, all aiming to reach the one destination. SELPAs have significant knowledge capital and are responsive and resourceful. They are effective thought partners and solution developers. Improvement is something SELPAs do with LEAs, not to them. Because of their significant experience, SELPAs have accumulated knowledge about what works and can respond quickly to requests for services from LEAs. They can be a resource for research and information on evidence-based models and best practices. They can also rapidly gear up to deliver services and customize the type of support and services based on local needs. SELPAs have deep relationships with LEAs and can serve as critical friends. SELPAs are independent entities highly trusted and respected by their member LEAs. Because of this, they can serve as external critical friends and provide rigorous feedback to LEAs, identifying challenges or opportunities the LEA may not have recognized or acknowledged independently. Because of their work in multiple sites, SELPAs can also share what is happening in other LEAs to help create a better understanding for the need to sustain a commitment to improvement and effective implementation. SELPAs are effective conveners and partnership brokers. SELPAs bring people and organizations together and foster more effective solutions to meeting academic and non-academic needs of students. Many SELPAs have connections to local public and private entities. They can be effective liaisons and brokers of community services. SELPAs collaborate effectively. SELPAs support LEAs in ways that go beyond their own capacity by collaborating with one another. The network of all SELPAs offers unparalleled experience and skills as well as a key venue to share knowledge and resources across the state. SELPAs model and promote efficient and effective operations. By acting as a shared service provider, SELPAs create economies of scale and contribute to the efficient use of resources between and among LEAs. SELPAs demonstrate their efficacy by saving LEAs time and money. Data analysis to drive improvement. SELPAs recognize that all their member LEAs review and analyze data. SELPAs support and grow this capacity and provide additional assistance in facilitating data-driven insights and making conclusions actionable for special education students and programs. Stakeholder engagement. SELPAs regularly help LEAs with stakeholder engagement strategies and can use their existing communications structures to help the state do the same. Given their presence in every corner of the state, SELPAs can be an efficient mechanism for gathering stakeholder input and feedback, and for sharing critical information. Supporting focused attention on students with disabilities. The work of SELPAs are focused on providing specialized services and supports to LEAs that address the needs of special populations. They already have significant assets in place to do this work. Some SELPAs also provide services to LEAs in DRAFT 6

7 hard-to-fill services positions such as occupational therapists, physical therapists, psychologists, preschool and special education teachers, among others. Teacher and leader professional development. SELPAs have long provided leadership, planning and coordination to support beginning teachers and administrators with mentors. They understand how to provide effective professional development that is job-embedded, sustained and impactful. The depth and breadth of knowledge that SELPAs offer meet the needs among teachers and leaders for high quality professional development in all components of special education and effective interventions for struggling learners. Involve SELPAs in the development and implementation of the State Systemic Improvement Plan and its broader vision for educational improvement. SELPAs can provide CDE with concepts, feedback and resources to ensure effective, efficient implementation of strategies within the state s plan. SELPAs should be tasked with serving as the locus for supports and initiatives designed to have impact at the local level. SELPAs have the capacity to advance the components of California s strategic plan and vision consistent with state priorities. Recommendation 5: Fund SELPAs and LEAs at appropriate and equal levels commensurate with fulfilling the mandates and expectations defined by federal and state law. Coordinating and ensuring special education programs are in place for a diverse student population is complex and requires collaboration and leadership from many stakeholders. Materially changing the current Special Education SELPA funding model to direct LEA funding will lead unintended consequences and unintended dynamics between LEAs. 1. LEA direct funding would necessitate the development of complex invoicing and transferring systems that would not create greater transparency or efficiency. 2. Decrease the ability to leverage special education funding to ensure the full continuum of programs and services are available for students throughout the region. 3. Direct funding would mandate/dictate/supersede regional decisions that have formed the basis of long standing collaborative programs and agreements. 4. Direct funding would undo longstanding agreements and decisions that have created risk sharing arrangements to assist with extraordinary, low frequency special education student costs. 5. Direct funding would LEAs eliminate current SELPA Allocation Plans that have created the ability to shift ADA/Enrollment-based funding away from LEAs of lower need toward LEAs demonstrating greater need, based on identified program capacity, population differences and actual expenditures. Direct funding would significantly complicate the compliance burden associated with federal funding. CDE oversight is aggregated at the SELPA level currently (131 entities) and would shift to the LEA (2,300 entities) level with direct funding. DRAFT 7