Marin County Office of Education Report

Marin County Office of Education Special Education Review September 14, 2010 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM September 14, 2010 Mary Jane Burke, Superintendent Marin County Office of Education 111 Las Galinas Avenue San Rafael, CA 94903 Dear Superintendent Burke: In March 2010, the Marin County Office of Education and FCMAT entered into an agreement for a review of the county office’s special education programs and services. The study agreement specifies that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. Review COE special educational delivery system that will include but not be limited to analyzing the roles and responsibilities of: A. Administrative staffing structure and make recommendations to improve efficiency, if necessary. B. All operated COE special educations programs and classes to determine cost efficiency. C. Staffing ratios of all special education support staff including but not limited to school psychology, speech, occupational, adaptive PE, and occupational therapists. 2. Analyze COE special education classified and certificated staffing formulas and caseloads and compare with legal requirements and statewide averages. 3. Review 1-1 aide policy, procedures and staffing ratios and determine whether process is effective and make recommendations to improve efficiency and effective us of assigned aides to special education. The attached final report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations.. FCMAT Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer . . 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93 . 301-4533 Telephone 661-6 . 36-4611 Fax 661-63 . 6-4647 422 Petaluma Blvd North, Suite. C, Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: 707-775-2850 Fax: 707-775-2854 www.fcmat.org Administrative Agent: Christine L. Frazier - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to be of service and extends its thanks to all the staff of the Marin County Office of Education and the member school districts for their cooperation and assis- tance during this review Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Foreword .................................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................1 Study Guidelines ............................................................................................2 Study Team.......................................................................................................2 Executive Summary ..............................................................................3 Findings and Recommendations .....................................................5 Special Education Delivery System ..........................................................5 Staffing Formulas and Caseloads ...........................................................21 One-to-One Paraprofessionals ................................................................25 Appendices ............................................................................................27 Marin county oFFice oF education ii Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM iii FOREWORD Study Agreements by Fiscal Year 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Projected Marin county oFFice oF education seidutS fo rebmuN Foreword - FCMAT Background The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) was created by legislation in accordance with Assembly Bill 1200 in 1992 as a service to assist local educational agencies (LEAs) in complying with fiscal accountability standards. AB 1200 was established from a need to ensure that LEAs throughout California were adequately prepared to meet and sustain their financial obligations. AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together on a local level to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. The legislation expanded the role of the county office in monitoring school districts under certain fiscal constraints to ensure these districts could meet their financial commitments on a multiyear basis. AB 2756 provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. These include compre- hensive assessments in five major operational areas and periodic reports that identify the district’s progress on the improvement plans. In January 2006, SB 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform nearly 750 reviews for local educational agencies, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. Services range from fiscal crisis intervention to management review and assistance. FCMAT also provides professional development training. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The agency is guided under the leadership of Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Total Number of Studies....................743 Total Number of Districts in CA ........1,050 Management Assistance.............................705 (94.886%) Fiscal Crisis/Emergency ................................38 (5.114%) Note: Some districts had multiple studies. Eight (8) districts have received emergency loans from the state. (Rev. 12/8/09) Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Background Marin county has 73 schools that serve a total of 29,615 students in grades K-12. The Marin County Office of Education provides programs and services in 45 elementary schools, 11 middle schools, nine high schools, two alternative schools, three continuation schools, one juvenile court school and one community school. The county office is also considered a school and provides special education services to 526 students. Approximately 37% of students enrolled in the county are minorities, including 22% who are Hispanic. This is an increase of 5% since 2004. Fourteen percent of the county’s students receive English language (EL) support services, which is an increase of 3% since 2004. Students identified as needing special education programs and services comprise 11.2% of the total K-12 student population countywide, which is slightly higher than the statewide average of 10.5%. Approximately 11% of special education students countywide are 0-4 years old, which also exceeds the statewide average of 8%. In March 2010, the Marin County Office of Education and FCMAT entered into an agreement for a review of the county office’s special education programs and services. The study agreement specifics that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. Review COE special educational delivery system that will include but not be limited to analyzing the roles and responsibilities of: A. Administrative staffing structure and make recommendations to improve efficiency, if necessary. B. All operated COE special educations programs and classes to determine cost efficiency. C. Staffing ratios of all special education support staff including but not limited to school psychology, speech, occupational, adaptive PE, and occupational therapists. 2. Analyze COE special education classified and certificated staffing formulas and caseloads and compare with legal requirements and statewide averages. 3. Review 1-1 aide policy, procedures and staffing ratios and determine whether process is effective and make recommendations to improve efficiency and effective us of assigned aides to special education. Marin county oFFice oF education 2 INTRODUCTION Study Guidelines FCMAT visited the district on April 20-29, 2010 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. This report is the result of those activities and is divided into the following sections: I. Executive Summary II. Special Education Delivery System III. Staffing and Formulas and Caseloads IV. One-to-One Paraprofessionals IV. Appendices Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: William P. Gillaspie, Ed.D. Trina Frazier* FCMAT Chief Management Analyst Administrator Bakersfield, CA Fresno County SELPA Fresno, CA JoAnn Murphy John Lotze FCMAT Consultant FCMAT Public Information Specialist Santee, CA Bakersfield, CA *As a member of this study team, this consultant was not representing their employer but was working solely as an independent contractor for FCMAT. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The Marin County Superintendent of Schools provides oversight and is responsible for providing special education services to children in Marin County on behalf of the school districts. District administrators countywide expressed positive support for the services provided by the county office and stated that the county office is attempting to provide the best service possible with available resources. The county office offers comprehensive special education programs and services for students from birth through age 22. The administrative leaders have a strong commitment to providing quality programs and services for students with severe disabilities. The county office requested that FCMAT review the special education delivery system, staffing formulas and caseloads, and the use of one-to-one paraprofessionals. A professional and respectful relationship between the county office and the special education local plan area (SELPA) member districts was evident throughout FCMAT’s fieldwork and inter- views, and administrators and staff communicated openly with the FCMAT study team. The county office has made efforts to reduce the number of administrators in the special educa- tion program; however, the ratio of pupils to administrators is still lower than in comparably sized districts and county offices of education. If the county were to increase its ratio to that of other local districts and counties by reducing administrative staff, it could save approximately $250,000 per year. However, before making staff reductions, the county should reexamine the responsibilities of its program managers, who spend 60-70% of their time performing individualized education program (IEP) case management and can therefore maintain only a limited focus on program development, staff training and supervision. This has resulted in a reactive service approach rather than proactive planning and program development. Most other districts and county offices of education of comparable size, structure and service levels require teachers to perform case management duties. The county office could increase cost efficiency by using integrated software to manage student information and updating the office equipment used by clerical and certificated staff. The telephone systems at some sites are old compared to current technology standards and need to be updated to increase effective communication. The county office operates programs and services for preschoolers with nonsevere disabilities. Many other county offices of education have returned these types of programs to districts. The county office should consider doing the same to increase both cost efficiency and students’ ability to access the natural environment, meaning the home and community settings in which children without disabilities participate, which is a new requirement in Education Code section 56441. Districts reiterated their desire for the county office to continue providing programs and services for students with severe disabilities. Participating districts also requested further expansion of programs for high school students with autism, elementary students with emotional disturbances, and students with social and emotional issues that affect classroom performance. There is a lack of appropriate professional development for certificated and classified staff and managers. Ensuring that staff receive and apply staff development will lead to greater cost effi- ciency, effective foundations for programs, and reduced litigation. Marin county oFFice oF education 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Districts do not have a working knowledge of the operational costs of county office-operated special education programs. Although the districts have no interest in transferring programs to district operation, they are requesting a better understanding of the costs associated with operating county office-provided programs in order to budget accurately for these costs. FCMAT provided several samples of data tables that can be used to show program costs and efficiencies. Most of the county office-operated programs have average class sizes consistent with statewide guidelines. Caseloads for designated instruction and services (DIS) providers are maximized and are consistent with guidelines or education code requirements. Caseloads in county office- operated preschool special education classes are higher than the education code allows and should be reduced. The county office has successfully implemented the SELPA’s policy regarding determining the need for one-to-one instructional aides. As a result, the county office continues to provide this service to students with demonstrated needs but has reduced the number of one-to-one aides by fostering independence. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Findings and Recommendations Special Education Delivery System The Marin County Office of Education operates a comprehensive range of programs and services for approximately 800 students with severe disabilities from 19 districts in the Marin County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA). Students range in age from infancy to 22 years. The county office provides programs for severely handicapped students, emotionally disturbed students and students with autism, programs for preschool students with nonsevere disabilities, and resource specialist services for rural districts. Both the county office and the districts have a strong commitment to providing programs for students with disabilities, and the districts are appreciative of the county office’s support. The county office also has a desire to ensure cost efficiency while providing quality programs Administrative Staffing and Structure To review administrative staffing and structure, FCMAT interviewed the superintendent, special education administrator and at least one principal from each of the following Marin County SELPA member school districts: Kentfield Elementary Mill Valley Elementary Novato Unified Reed Union Elementary Ross Valley Elementary San Rafael City San Rafael City High Data on administrative positions, special education pupil counts, supervisors and administrators was collected from the California Department of Education’s (CDE’s) Dataquest website and from the districts. Pupil count data was taken from the district of service data submitted to the CDE. The California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) distinguishes between a student’s district of residence and the district of service. Even though students may be served in a county office or regional program of the SELPA, the district of residence retains primary educational responsibility. This includes but is not limited to assessment, IEP develop- ment, funding out-of-district placement, due process, and compliance with state and federal laws. This study uses the district of service when comparing administrative ratios in county office-operated and district-operated programs; however, it does not account for any additional time directors spend for their students who are enrolled in county office-operated programs. Marin county oFFice oF education 6 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Table 1: Administrative support at the coordinator level in Marin County SELPA districts Administrators, Full- Pupil School District Time Equivalent Count Positions (FTEs) Kentfield 75 0.5 Mill Valley 246 1.0 Novato 845 1.0 Reed 82 0.5 Ross Valley 226 0.8 San Rafael Elementary 482 0.4 San Rafael High 215 0.4 Marin COE 800 1.0 Source: CASEMIS June 2009-2010 from Marin County SELPA; other data from FCMAT interviews and data requests. Only two districts with pupil counts ranging between 246 and 845 have full-time special education directors. The county office also has a full-time director of special education. In other districts, special education directors are assigned additional administrative duties such as pupil services or ensuring compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination based on disability; only a percentage of their time is charged to special education. FCMAT compared county office special education administrative staffing with that of the Novato Unified School District and with the combined administrative staffing of San Rafael Elementary and San Rafael High School districts; these entities have a similar number of special education students to the county office. The analysis, which is shown in Table 2, includes program managers or specialists who provide administrative support. Table 2: Comparison of Special Education Student-to-Administrator Ratios District Pupil Count Administrator Supervisor/ Program Pupil-to-Administrator Ratio Novato 845 1.0 FTE 3.0 FTE 211.25:1 San Rafael 697 .8 FTE 1.0 FTE 387.2:1 (Elem/HS) MCOE 800 1.0 FTE 4.26 FTE 152:1 Average 250.15:1 The data in Table 2 indicate that the county office has a pupil-to-administrator ratio of 152:1, which is lower than the comparison districts’ average ratio of 250.15:1. The combined San Rafael districts have a higher than average ratio of 387.2:1. Under the direction of the deputy superintendent of education services, the director of special education has primary oversight of the county office-operated special education programs and services, including 4.26 FTE program managers who provide direct support to county office certificated and classified staff and serve as liaisons with local school districts. As shown in Table 3, the county office’s special education pupil-to-administrator ratio is also lower than the average ratio in county offices of education with comparable numbers of special education students. Aligning its pupil-to-administrator ratio with those of comparable school districts and county offices of education would improve cost efficiency. This could result in an Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM annual savings of approximately $250,000. The county office would need to discuss these issues with local districts and the SELPA to determine the feasibility of this type of reduction. Table 3: Comparison of Administrative Support Levels with Other County Offices Administrator/Program Pupil-to- County Office Pupil Count Managers Administrator Ratio El Dorado 1107 3.0 FTE 369.0:1 Kings 1066 4.0 FTE 266.5:1 Marin 812 5.26 FTE 152:1 Average: 262.5:1 Source: CASEMIS data 2008-09; staffing posted on county office websites. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Consider aligning its level of special education administrative support with those of districts and county offices of education with comparable numbers of special education students. 2. Visit other county offices of education with special education programs of comparable size to compare the supervisory responsibilities of administrative staff. 3. Collaborate with local districts and the SELPA to determine the most appro- priate and efficient level of supervision for county office-operated special education programs. Marin county oFFice oF education 8 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Program Managers and Teachers The county office’s special education program managers are responsible for case management, including scheduling, facilitating, completing paperwork, and following up on IEPs. The program managers’ clerical assistants also help them schedule the IEPs. The program manager job description does not mention case management duties, yet an average of 60-70% of their time is spent on these duties. County office staff also reported that some program managers evaluate the paraprofessionals who work under the teachers they supervise. Performing these duties is not a cost efficient use of program managers’ or their clerical assistants’ time. Completing these duties does not allow program managers the time they need to perform program and curriculum development. Special education teachers need to perform these duties during their regular workday; this is common practice in county offices of education statewide. The county office’s job description for special education teachers states that teachers should “maintain appropriate student records,” and this should include the IEP. The county office may want to consider strengthening the language in the job description to address IEP responsibilities specifically. Appendix B provides a sample list of case management duties for teachers. Program managers need to be in classrooms assisting with curriculum and program development. They need to plan, organize and direct program operations and activities under the supervision of the special education director. Program managers also need to closely monitor paraprofessional and nursing support and implement plans to gradually decrease students’ need for special educa- tion services (known as fading plans) to increase cost efficiency. Program managers will also need to attend high-profile IEP meetings at which their program expertise is needed; this is a standard and efficient practice industrywide. Both district and county office staff indicated that the county office special education department operates reactively rather than proactively. This situation can create inefficiencies and be difficult to overcome to implement improvements. Reactive organizations have difficulty finding the time needed to create positive change. In the county office’s case, this is partly because program managers are responsible for case management. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Ensure that program managers are relieved of the duties of scheduling, facili- tating, completing paperwork and following up with IEPs, unless it is a high profile IEP meeting at which their expertise is needed. 2. Ensure that program managers are not responsible for evaluating paraprofes- sionals. 3. Give special education teachers the responsibility of scheduling, facilitating, completing paperwork and following up with IEPs during their regular work day. 4. Give teachers the responsibility of evaluating all paraprofessionals assigned to their respective classrooms. 5. Ensure that program managers spend more time observing in classrooms to provide support to teachers to help improve services. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM 6. Give program managers the responsibility of developing quality programs as directed by the special education director. 7. Ensure that program managers develop a fading plan that includes additional assistance to classrooms to foster student independence. 8. Develop a plan to alleviate the special education department’s reactive tenden- cies and strive for more proactive communication and management measures. Marin county oFFice oF education 10 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Technology The county office special education department uses three different software systems to manage student information: the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS), Organizational Management and Resources (OMAR) and the Aeries student infor- mation system. Some staff and districts do not use OMAR to develop IEPs because its software program is not compatible with Aeries or CASEMIS and it is not web-based. The SELPA is adopting an alternative IEP program that should be faster and more cost-efficient. Some technology in the county office’s special education department office is antiquated and needs to be updated so that the department can operate more cost efficiently. Both clerical and certificated staff use outdated equipment that frequently breaks down, which affects department efficiency. Telephone systems at some sites are also old and need to be replaced. According to interviews with staff, the special education department uses systems that require a large amount of manual labor to complete items such as leave slips, purchase orders, payroll and time sheets. Replacing these systems with online software systems when financial resources permit would help reduce costs and streamline processes. The county office does not generate attendance reports monthly. Continual monitoring of atten- dance percentages can help increase revenue based on average daily attendance (ADA). Table 4 provides a snapshot of monthly attendance in all county office-operated classrooms. Table 4: Marin County Office of Education, Actual Pupil Attendance A B C D E F G H Total Actual Total YTD Possible Total Days of Actual Absent Absent Attendance Std Average Days of Nonattendance Attendance Excused Unexcused Days School Enroll Enrollment Student (D + E) Percentage (C – F) Site Attendance School Site 8 8.00 1,184 56 11 67 1,117 94.34% School Site 14 11.64 1,665 110 57 167 1,498 89.97% School Site 131 122.34 17,372 1291 792 2,083 15,289 88.01% School Site 15 13.92 1,991 94 30 124 1,867 93.77% School Site 30 22.69 3,245 230 121 351 2,894 89.18% School Site 24 23.26 3,311 404 117 521 2,790 84.26% School Site 3 2.49 354 36 18 54 300 84.75% School Site 8 7.11 1,017 90 4 94 923 90.76% School Site 122 115.04 16,335 1981 387 2,368 13,967 85.50% School Site 11 11.00 1,606 116 22 138 1,468 91.41% School Site 9 7.75 1,108 93 65 158 950 85.74% School Site 51 44.75 6,329 991 232 1,223 5,106 80.68% School Site 1 0.97 138 7 5 12 126 91.30% School Site 35 32.30 4,554 502 120 622 3,932 86.34% School Site 8 6.01 848 16 41 57 791 93.28% School Site 3 1.79 52 5 0 5 47 90.38% School Site 7 5.93 172 14 0 14 158 91.86% School Site 27 22.50 3,216 265 98 363 2,853 88.71% School Site 94 87.66 12,886 1548 537 2,085 10,801 83.82% Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM A B C D E F G H Total Actual Total YTD Possible Total Days of Actual Absent Absent Attendance Std Average Days of Nonattendance Attendance Excused Unexcused Days School Enroll Enrollment Student (D + E) Percentage (C – F) Site Attendance School Site 9 8.69 1,251 151 73 224 1,027 82.09% School Site 13 9.88 1,443 59 77 136 1,307 90.58% 623 565.72 80,077 8,059 2,807 10,866 69,211 86.43% Percent Absent 13.57% Recommendations The county office should: 1. Continue to work with the SELPA to evaluate and implement a web-based IEP program. 2. Update special education department technology and equipment as funding allows. 3. Consider replacing manual systems with online systems to streamline processes. 4. Monitor attendance monthly, and develop a table that documents attendance percentages. Marin county oFFice oF education 12 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Secretarial and Clerical Support Clerical staff indicated that there is duplication of effort, paperwork and processes in numerous areas, and there is little streamlining or segregation of duties. It may be more efficient and cost effective for various secretarial and clerical support staff to be responsible for different duties, such as one person generating all purchase orders and another providing support in preparation for meetings. Recommendation The county office should: 1. Determine if it would be more cost effective to streamline and segregate secretarial and clerical duties. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Programs for Preschoolers with Nonsevere Disabilities The county office provides programs for preschoolers with severe and nonsevere disabilities. Many county offices in California operate programs for severely disabled preschool students, but most have returned programs for preschoolers with nonsevere disabilities to the students’ districts of residence because of the changing requirements for preschool services indicated in Part 30, Education Code 56441.4 (a-f). This section of the education code specifies a number of settings that are difficult for county office-operated programs to provide, including the following: a. The regular public or private nonsectarian preschool program b. The child development center or family day care home c. The child’s regular environment that may include the home d. A special site where preschool programs for both children with disabilities and children who are not disabled are located close to each other and have an opportunity to share resources and programming e. A special education preschool program with children who are not disabled attending and participating for all or part of the program f. A public school setting which provides an age-appropriate environment, materials and services, as defined by the superintendent. Source: Part 30, California Education Code 56441.4 (a-f) Returning programs for preschoolers with nonsevere disabilities to districts of residence allows the districts to build relationships with parents from the start of their students’ public education. The districts determine the services needed and become familiar with students’ needs when they are in preschool rather than waiting until kindergarten. Students served by their district of residence also have access to the home and community settings in which children without disabilities participate (also known as the natural environ- ment), which is required by law. It is also usually slightly more cost effective for districts to operate programs for preschool students. Very small districts may consider establishing mutual agreements to provide preschool special education services. If these programs are returned to districts, the county would need to provide support during the transition and ensure that existing county office certificated staff have the opportunity to continue their position in the employ of the district that requests the transfer. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Consider returning to districts the operation of programs for preschoolers with nonsevere disabilities. 2. Provide county office preschool staff with training regarding the changing requirements for preschool students’ access to natural environments. 3. Discuss with SELPA districts the possibility of districts providing special education services for preschool students with nonsevere disabilities. Marin county oFFice oF education 14 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Program Delivery FCMAT found a high level of respect and professionalism between districts and the county office with regard to services to students. District staff expressed appreciation for the role the county office plays in providing a comprehensive range of programs and services and indicated a desire for expanded options for students with autism and students with emotional disturbances. To serve these students would require several additional classrooms for high school students with autism and one class for emotionally disturbed elementary school students. Special day classes specializing in social or emotional issues that affect classroom behavior would also be needed. Districts expressed frustration regarding delays and obstacles to mental health services from the community mental health department. Districts need the county office’s assistance in the form of collaboration with community mental health to ensure that students who require intensive mental health services are able to access them in a timely manner. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Create new program options for high school students with autism. 2. Create new program options for elementary school students with emotional disturbances. 3. Examine the social or emotional issues that affect classroom behavior and create options for services to address those issues. 4. Provide leadership in collaborating with community mental health and local districts to resolve delays in mental health services. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Staff Development and Parent Involvement The county office special education department lacks effective and appropriate staff development opportunities for paraprofessionals, teachers, parents, designated instruction and services (DIS) staff, and management staff. Special education is one area in which it is imperative that organiza- tions invest in staff development to equip employees and reduce costs in the long term. The county office has a number of staff development offerings available for district staff (see Appendix D); however, it may be beneficial for the SELPA to financially support a predetermined amount of staff release time. Ensuring that staff participate in and apply staff development should lead to more cost-effective operations. Parents have a limited voice in special education. The community advisory committee has a 90% parent vacancy rate, and parents expressed frustration that the county office’s website has limited information about special education services and how to obtain them. The county office special education program holds no meetings or focus groups for parents of children in its programs to discuss concerns and program options. There are also no trainings or meetings to help parents learn how to communicate effectively with school personnel regarding their child’s educational progress or other concerns. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Ensure that special education staff receive quality staff development opportu- nities 2. Consider providing SELPA-funded special education teacher release time to increase district participation in staff development. 3. Work with the Marin County SELPA to strengthen parent participation and trainings. 4. Conduct a needs assessment among all parents who have children in county office-operated programs to determine needs and interests regarding training and how to improve communication. 5. Provide training for parents based on the needs assessment, and work with the SELPA to obtain training resources. 6. Update the county office website with contact information for special educa- tion staff and a user-friendly page that indicates the various services available and whom to contact for support. Marin county oFFice oF education 16 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Due Process Districts expressed concern that when a parent of a student attending a county office-operated program files for due process, the district is named in the due process filing and pays the associ- ated costs. Districts expressed the opinion that the county office should bear some of these costs. However, the county office shares responsibility for due process by organizing and providing release time for staff when litigation occurs. If the county office were to share in the financial liability, these costs would ultimately be passed back to the districts through bill-backs for excess costs. Depending on how the excess costs were billed back, all districts might share the litigation fees rather than only the district of residence against which the due process was filed. This would not be equitable because it could require a district that has few or no due process filings to bear part of another district’s due process costs. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Explain clearly the reasons it does not share the cost of due process litigation. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 17 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Reporting Program Costs and Efficiencies District staff indicated a desire to know what it costs the county office to operate programs. Staff indicated that this comes not from a desire to take back program operations from the county office but to gain a better understanding of the costs of county office-operated programs for students with severe disabilities. The county office provides districts with an overall per-pupil cost but not a specific breakdown of the actual costs of operating various programs and services. This type of cost analysis takes some time and effort to produce because specific costs ideally include all costs (including staffing) associated with programs for severely handicapped students, emotionally disturbed students, students with autism, preschool early intervention, transition programs and itinerant programs. This information can be used to determine efficiencies and inefficiencies and to convey a sense of openness regarding programs and staffing. To show program costs and efficiencies, the county office special education department may complete information regarding total program costs, and detailed information regarding specific programs and services, using Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix A and provide these to the SELPA director and the member districts. It is important to track and record all costs associated with county office-operated programs in a program such as Microsoft Excel. The county office might also consider providing the SELPA director and member districts with a table of programs and services that includes the number of full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) for administrative, secretarial, fiscal, itinerant and teacher, and paraprofessional staff. Staff- to-student ratios can also be included, and the information can be broken down by type and location of program, such as off-site, center-based, integrated services for severely handicapped students, and itinerant programs and services. Amounts in any table should balance with the exact cost of operating programs. Table 3 in Appendix A provides a template for this type of table. Providing a summary of classroom costs for individual programs and services can also be a signifi- cant benefit to the SELPA, its member districts and the county office. Tables 4-9 in Appendix A provide templates for this type of information. Completing these types of tables and providing them at SELPA committee meetings at least annually can help foster openness and show the costs and efficiencies of various services. Providing SELPA member districts with a monthly recap of class enrollment figures (also known as a class loading recap) would also provide open and clear communication that could benefit the special education program. Because the enrollment in each classroom varies from month to month, this document would need to be updated monthly and shared at SELPA committee meetings. Every class or center that the county office operates would need to be included. Table 5 is an example of this type of data. Marin county oFFice oF education 18 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Table 5: Class Loading Recap Severely Disabled (SH) (9 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment San Rafael/Venetia Valley Name Elementary 6 Dixie/Vallecito Name Elementary 9 Novato/Olive Name Elementary 10 Novato/San Jose MS Name Middle 9 Novato/Loma Verde Name Elementary 9 San Rafael/San Rafael HS Name High School 12 TUHSD/Tamalpais HS Name High School 9 San Rafael/Terra Linda HS Name High School 12 TUHSD/Redwood HS Name High School 8 Subtotal (Max #) 84 Severely Disabled & Autism (SDA) (4 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment Dixie/Vallecito Name Elementary 11 Mill Valley/ Mill Valley Middle Name Middle 11 Ross Valley/Wade Thomas Name Elementary 10 Novato/San Marin HS Name High School 8 Subtotal (Max #) 40 Autism (3 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment San Rafael/Glenwood Name Elementary 5 Novato/Pleasant Valley Name Elementary 6 Reed/Del Mar Name Middle 11 Subtotal (Max #) 22 Emotionally Disturbed (ED) (5 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment Kentfield/Grant Grover Name Elem/Middle 4 Kentfield/Grant Grover Name Elementary 7 Mill Valley/Mill Valley Blended Name Elem/Middle 8 San Rafael/Braun High School Name High School 7 San Rafael/Braun High School Name High School 8 Subtotal (Max #) 34 Post-Secondary Severely Handicapped (SH) (3 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment Com/Kentfield Name 11 Com/Kentfield Name 13 Com/IVC Name 15 Subtotal (Max #) 39 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 19 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Preschool Severely Disabled (SH) (3 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment MCOE/Marindale Name Preschool 10 MCOE/Marindale Name Preschool 9 Dixie/Santa Margarita Name Preschool 9 Subtotal (Max #) 28 Preschool Non-Severe (5 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment MCOE/Marindale Name Preschool 10/8 Dixie/Santa Margarita Name Preschool 9/8 San Rafael/Gallinas Annex Name Preschool 10/9 San Rafael/Gallinas Annex Name Preschool 9/8 MCOE/Mag Park Name Preschool 10/11 Subtotal (Max #) 48/44 Preschool Non-Intensive (2 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment Reed/Granada Name Preschool 18 Mag Park/Marindale Name Preschool 20 Subtotal (Max #) 38 Preschool Autism (3 Classes) Site Teacher Grade Enrollment MCOE/Marindale Name Preschool 7 MCOE/Marindale Name Preschool 6 Novato/Pleasant Valley Name Preschool 6 Subtotal (Max #) 19 There is a perception among districts that the large districts subsidize the small districts in the area of special education services. There is a perception that some districts may refer a high number of students to, or overuse, the county office-operated programs, and some concern that some districts may refer too few students, resulting in an uneven distribution of services among the districts. To address this issue, other SELPAs and county offices of education provide specific information about the percentage of students served in special day class (SDC) programs for severely disabled students and sort the information by district of residence. Many use a table similar to Table 10 in Appendix A of this report. It would benefit the county office to complete this information and share it at SELPA committee meetings. Marin county oFFice oF education 20 SPECIAL EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM Recommendations The county office should: 1. Consider completing and using the table titled Special Education Program Costs (Appendix A, Table 1) to help demonstrate cost efficiency and open communication to districts in the SELPA governing council. 2. Consider completing the table titled Detailed Costs of Programs and Services (Appendix A, Table 2) and distributing it to and discussing it with districts in the SELPA governing council. 3. Consider completing and distributing to districts in the SELPA governing council the tables that summarize classroom costs by program or service for fiscal year 2009-10 (Appendix A, tables 4-9). 4. Consider completing and distributing Table 5, Class Loading Recap, to the SELPA governing council for information and discussion. 5. Develop and distribute at each SELPA committee meeting a table identical or similar to Table 10 in Appendix A that shows the percentage of students serviced in SDCs for the severely handicapped and sorts this information by district of residence. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 21 STAFFING FORMULAS AND CASELOADS Staffing Formulas and Caseloads Staffing Formulas The county office special education department has not developed written formulas for classified and certificated staffing. Verbal formulas are used, and there is a pattern of support within the programs. The county office staffs a program for severely disabled students with a teacher and two paraprofessionals. A few classes with lower enrollments have less support, and others have one-to-one aide support in addition to the regular staffing. There is a need for written staffing formulas based on student needs, safety, recommended caseloads, individual circumstances, grade levels and location. Caseloads The California Education Code does not indicate maximum caseloads for special day classes (SDC); however, School Services of California (SSC) has developed recommended caseload guidelines using data collected from throughout California. The FCMAT study team compared the county office’s classified and certificated staffing and caseloads with the recommended caseload guidelines from SSC. This data is provided in Table 6 and includes the type of program, the grade level, the number of FTEs and the caseload averages. Information regarding paraprofessional support is also included, though not one-to-one parapro- fessional support. Table 6: Classified and Certificated Staffing Caseloads Paras *SSC Caseload Program Grade Level FTEs Per Recommended Averages Class Caseloads Elementary School 6 2 9 8-10 Severely Disabled (SH) Middle School 2 2 10 8-10 High School 5 2 10 8-10 Elementary School 2 2 6 8 Autism Severely Disabled (SH) Middle School 1 1 4 8 Elementary and Middle Grant Grover Day Treatment 2 1-3 12 n/a School Intensive Outpatient 1 3 15 n/a Elementary and Middle 3 1-2 6 8-10 School Emotionally Disturbed (ED) High School 2 1 8 8-10 Severely Disabled (SH) Preschool 3 2 9 8-10 Autism Severely Disabled (SH) Preschool 3 2 6 8 Non Intensive Preschool 2.8 1-1.5 19 12-15 Marin county oFFice oF education 22 STAFFING FORMULAS AND CASELOADS Paras *SSC Caseload Program Grade Level FTEs Per Recommended Averages Class Caseloads AM PM Nonsevere Preschool 8 1 12-15 10 8 Infant 2 1-2 n/a n/a Headstart 2 1 n/a n/a Resource Specialist (RS) Rural .50 28 * School Services of California This table does not include data on one-to-one paraprofessionals/aides Average caseloads for most of the county office-operated programs meet SSC’s recommended guidelines and a few, including autism programs, have caseloads or enrollments lower than the recommendations. Autism is the most rapidly growing area of disability and requires the most intensive range of programming and services. Classes for students with nonsevere disabilities are either at or higher than the recommended enrollment, while classes for the severely disabled have caseloads in line with those of other county offices of education throughout California. Evidence indicates that the county office monitors enrollment data and caseloads regularly and effectively. At the time of FCMAT’s review, the county office had frozen two programs and their associated positions because of low enrollment. The county office will need to continue thoroughly analyzing this data and adding, reducing or eliminating programs based on the data. Projecting program needs can be difficult because of factors such as facility locations, fluctuations in the populations served, grade level considerations and competitive pay scales. Designated Instruction and Service (DIS) Caseloads The county office has no caseload guidelines for occupational therapy and employs nonpublic agency contractors to meet its staffing needs because of the lack of candidates for permanent positions. Occupational therapy services are embedded into all of the preschool programs, which has decreased the need for services. Special education psychologists’ caseloads are typically compared to statewide average caseloads for psychologists serving general education students; however, because of the nature and severity of the disabilities in the population served in the county office’s programs, this comparison is not appropriate. The county office uses a staffing formula for psychologist assignments based on 13 days per year, per special day class. This provides an adequate and appropriate level of psycholo- gist support. Some school districts in the SELPA contract for a portion of the psychologists’ assignments. The county office anticipates reducing the number of contract days requested by districts, which could result in layoffs; however, this information was not final until June. To make a timely final determination regarding psychologist services needed for the 2010-11 school year the county office requests that districts consider finalization prior to June 1. The average caseload for preschool speech therapists is 41.5, which is slightly higher than the maximum of 40 specified in EC 56441.7. The county office should monitor and maintain casel- oads within statutory guidelines. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 23 STAFFING FORMULAS AND CASELOADS Caseloads for itinerant specialists for deaf and hard of hearing and visually impaired students are maximized and are consistent with SSC’s statewide guidelines. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Develop written classified and certificated staffing formulas for use by the special education department. Ensure that the staffing formulas are developed based on student needs, safety, recommended caseloads, individual circumstances, grade levels and location. 3. Strive to eliminate overstaffing and understaffing of classes. 4. Ensure that the programs with enrollments slightly lower than SSC’s recom- mended guidelines are monitored closely based on needs. 5. Monitor and analyze enrollment and caseload data regularly. 6. Reach an agreement with the county’s school districts regarding a date prior to June 1 by which districts will finalize and submit information regarding psychologist services needed for the subsequent school year. 7. Maintain and monitor preschool speech and language caseloads in compli- ance with statutory requirements. Marin county oFFice oF education 24 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 25 ONE-TO-ONE PARAPROFESSIONALS One-to-One Paraprofessionals The county office special education department has 17 one-to-one paraprofessionals assigned to students. As FCMAT recommended in a study conducted in 2005, the county office has worked diligently to reduce the use of additional support, foster independence for their students and adhere to the requirement that students be served in the least restrictive environment. When not monitored closely, additional support can unintentionally foster dependence, which does not benefit students. The special education department uses SELPA Policy MSO1-2003, titled “Policy and Procedures for Related Services-Special Circumstances Assistance,” to determine a student’s need for one-to- one paraprofessionals or additional support. The SELPA policy and procedures provide the ratio- nale for support of this nature and focus on the least restrictive environment requirement and personal independence when making this decision. The policy provides step-by-step procedures for county office staff to follow when considering the potential need for additional assistance. When additional support is required, the IEP team will need to establish a review schedule as outlined in the SELPA policy to evaluate the effectiveness of the additional support. This type of review typically occurs every three to six months. A fading plan (a plan to phase out services and increase independence) also needs to be estab- lished and monitored closely by the program managers. As indicated earlier in this report, because the program managers have case management duties, they do not have the time needed to adequately monitor these placements. It is crucial that program managers have time to monitor these services. The special education director will also need to closely monitor the provi- sion of additional support. When additional support is being considered, the special education department also uses the SELPA’s “Student Needs for Additional Support Rubric” form. It is a department requirement that this form be completed and included in a student’s file. The program managers will need to ensure that staff continue to complete this form. The county office informs a student’s district of residence by telephone or e-mail when additional support is needed in the classroom and gives the district the option of providing the additional support or asking the county to do so. This allows the districts to be a part of the decision and gives them the opportunity to budget for these additional services. If the county office provides the additional assistance, the districts are billed twice a year. The SELPA policy outlines the specifics for this arrangement. Paraprofessional support in the county office-operated programs is fairly consistent. A few county office-operated classes have excessive paraprofessional support, and a few others could use some additional assistance, especially to ensure that staff can take breaks as required by law. Staffing could be balanced with minimal changes to assignments and without hiring additional staff. Although services for students are considered on an individual basis, the county office should continually examine paraprofessional support to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Some staff indicated that staffing ratios and procedures are not always adhered to because of pressure some- times exerted by parents. Staff development opportunities for paraprofessionals, including one-to-one or special circum- stances aides, could be increased. It is important to ensure that paraprofessionals receive adequate training opportunities. Difficulty obtaining coverage for their duties can make it difficult to Marin county oFFice oF education 26 ONE-TO-ONE PARAPROFESSIONALS release paraprofessionals from the classroom. However, online paraprofessional training opportu- nities are available (see Appendix C) and may be a viable option. Paraprofessionals are not included in special education staff meetings but could provide valuable input at certain meetings that could lead to improved efficiency and effectiveness. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Continue to use the SELPA policy and procedures for special circumstances and instructional aides when considering additional support in the classroom. 2. Continue to ensure that one-to-one paraprofessionals foster independence for the students they serve. 3. Ensure that when one-to-one paraprofessional or additional support is determined to be beneficial, a review schedule is developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the support. 4. Ensure that fading plans are always developed when additional support is provided and that program managers monitor support closely . 5. Ensure that the special education director continues to monitor additional support closely. 6. Continue to use the SELPA’s “Student Needs for Additional Support Rubric” form when additional support is being considered. 7. Continue allowing districts to participate in the decision when additional support is needed. 8. Continue to use the ratios that have been established for paraprofessional support to the classrooms. 9. Review paraprofessionals’ assignments to determine which classes have more staff than needed and which would benefit from additional support. Change staff assignments to more consistently provide the level of staffing needed. 10. Ensure that paraprofessionals and one-to-one support staff have staff develop- ment opportunities; consider online options. 11. Consider including paraprofessionals in certain special education staff meet- ings at which their presence and input would benefit students. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 2277 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendices Marin county oFFice oF education 2288 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 2299 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix A Data Tables to Improve Communication Regarding Costs and Cost Efficiencies Marin county oFFice oF education 3300 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3311 APPENDDRICAEFST Table 1: Marin County Office of Education, Special Education Program Costs Dec 1, 2009 Amount Per Total Cost of Marin County Office of Education Pupil Count Student Service PROGRAM COSTS $0.00 Severely Disabled (SH) Center Off-site 0 $0.00 Locations Severely Disabled (SH) Integrated Site 0 $0.00 $0.00 Non Severe (SDC) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Non-Intensive Services 0 $0.00 $0.00 Vocational Education (ATP) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Emotionally Disturbed (ED) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Autism 0 $0.00 $0.00 Preschool Early Intervention Program 0 $0.00 $0.00 Resource Specialist Program (RSP) Including 0 $0.00 $0.00 Court Community FTEs of Amount per _ ITINERANT COSTS Service FTEs Provided Adapted Physical Education (APE) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Speech & Language (SL) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Deaf & Hard of Hearing (DHH) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Orientation and Mobility (OM) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Orthopedic Impaired (OI) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Visually Impaired (VI) 0 $0.00 $0.00 12/09 Pupil Amount Per Services Provided by District Name Count Student Deaf & Hard of Hearing (DHH) (Preschool) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Deaf & Hard of Hearing (DHH) (K-8) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Deaf & Hard of Hearing (DHH) (9-12) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Orthopedically Impaired (OI) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Visually Impaired (VI) 0 $0.00 $0.00 Total Student Costs Per District before $0.00 Revenue Offset Revenue Generated per Pupil $0.00 Revenue Limit $0.00 Lottery Revenue $0.00 Marin county oFFice oF education 3322 DARPPAEFNTDICES Instructional Materials $0.00 Sub-Total on Revenues Generated by Pupil $0.00 Adjusted District Student Costs $0.00 Percentage of Special Education Students being served compared to total District K-12 ADA Note: Additional costs currently being paid with Medi-Cal and MAA funds Uncertain on the future of the continuation of receiving these funds Over and Above Excess Costs not included in actual costs above Including but not limited to: Behavioral Specialists, Specialized Physical Health Care, One-on-One Nurse Support, One-on-One Aide - transportation and or classroom support, OT/PT Services, Medical Consultation and Interpreters Subject to updates – November 1st and April 1st Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3333 APPENDDRICAEFST Table 2: Detail of Costs of Programs and Services Marin County Operated Special Education Programs Chart of Programs/Services 2009/10 Admin Support Costs $0.00 Sub-Total Support Costs $0.00 DIRECT SERVICE COSTS (Examples: ED & SH) Severely Disabled (SH) SDC $0.00 Severely Disabled (SH) SDC Paraprofessionals $0.00 Vocational Education (ATP) SDC $0.00 Vocational Education (ATP) Paraprofessionals $0.00 RSP Court/Community $0.00 RSP Court/Community Paraprofessionals $0.00 Preschool Early Intervention Program $0.00 Preschool Early Intervention Program $0.00 Paraprofessionals Non-Severe SDC $0.00 Speech $0.00 Speech Instructional Aides $0.00 Audiologist $0.00 Visually Impaired (VI) Itinerant Staff $0.00 Deaf & Hard of Hearing (DHH) Itinerant Staff $0.00 Orientation & Mobility (O&M) Itinerant Staff $0.00 Orthopedically Impaired (OI) Itinerant Staff $0.00 Adaptive Physical Education (APE) Itinerant Staff $0.00 Autism SDC $0.00 Autism Classified Paraprofessionals $0.00 Nonsevere Paraprofessionals $0.00 Assistive Technology $0.00 Out of Home Care $0.00 Physical Therapy $0.00 Special Circumstance Instructional Aides (SCIAs) or $0.00 One-to-One Paraprofessionals Home Instruction $0.00 DIS Support to Special Day Class Marin county oFFice oF education 3344 DARPPAEFNTDICES Nurses $0.00 OT Services $0.00 Psychologists $0.00 Specialist $0.00 Extra Help Paraprofessionals $0.00 Sub-Total Direct Costs $0.00 Total Admin Support / Direct Costs $0.00 Contracted Services Administrative / Direct Services $0.00 Program Operational Costs $0.00 Total SCCOE Budget $0.00 REVENUES – Revenue Limit $0.00 Preschool $0.00 J-50 Infant $0.00 Infant Part C $0.00 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3355 APPENDDRICAEFST Table 3: Special Education FTEs and Staff by Program and Service, 2009-10 Marin County Operated Special Education Programs Chart of Programs/Services FTEs 2009/10 Setting/Program Center Name/Program Name Administrative Staff FTEs Management Staff 0 Secretarial 0 Fiscal Analyst 0 Costs Custodial $0.00 OFF SITE LOCATIONS or CENTER BASED Staff to Student Ratio Number of Staff Classes 0 Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Enrollment 0 INTEGRATED SH Elementary Staff to Student Ratio Secondary Staff to Student Ratio Number of Staff Classes 0 Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Enrollment 0 NON-SEVERE SDC Staff to Student Ratio Number of Staff Services/Classes 0 Staff/Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Enrollment 0 Marin county oFFice oF education 3366 DARPPAEFNTDICES VOCATIONAL EDUCATION (ATP) Staff to Student Ratio Number of Staff Services/Classes 0 Staff/Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Enrollment 0 Nurses ___ FTEs Psychologists ___FTEs Specialists ___FTEs SPEECH/LANGUAGE SERVICES Specialists 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Caseloads 0 AVG. Caseload 0 **___districts & ___charter school SPEECH SPECIALISTS Autism 0 Caseloads 0 AVG. Caseload 0 Bilingual Assessor 0 AUDIOLOGIST Caseloads 0 AVG. Caseload 0 VISUALLY IMPAIRED (VI) Staff/Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Tech Support 0 Caseloads 0 AVG. Caseload 0 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3377 APPENDDRICAEFST DEAF & HARD OF HEARING (DHH) Staff/Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Caseloads 0 ORIENTATION & MOBILITY (OM) Specialists 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Caseloads 0 ORTHOPEDICALLY IMPAIRED (OI) Staff/Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Caseloads 0 AVG. Caseload 0 ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION (APE) Specialists 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Caseloads 0 AVG. Caseload 0 *Plus___for SD specially designed program AUSTISM - SDC Classes 0 Staff/Teachers 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Classified 0 Enrollment 0 PRESCHOOL EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM Coordinator 0 Marin county oFFice oF education 3388 DARPPAEFNTDICES Certificated Staff 0 Paraprofessionals 0 Classified 0 Students 0 ALL OTHER (i.e. PHYSICAL THERAPY, ETC.) Staff 0 Students 0 Nurses ___ FTEs Psychologists ___FTEs **Speech pathologist support is reflected in the total Speech/Language Services Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3399 APPENDDRICAEFST Tables 4-9: Summary of Classroom Costs by Program or Service Table 4: Summary of Classroom Costs for Severely Disabled Students, 2009-10 Center Name - Severely Disabled (SH) Salary Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Number of Classes ___ Total Salary $0.00 AVG Center Salary $0.00 School Name – Severely Disabled (SH) Integrated Sites Salary Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Total Salary $0.00 Number of Classes ___ AVG Integrated Sites Salaries $0.00 Paraprofessionals ___ FTEs $0.00 DIS Services & Operational costs per Class Nurses ___ FTEs $0.00 Occupational Therapist (OT) Services ___ FTEs $0.00 Psychologists ____ days a week $0.00 Speech ___ FTEs $0.00 Adaptive Physical Education (APE) ___ FTEs $0.00 Low Incidence ___ FTEs $0.00 Total $0.00 Severely Disabled (SH) Center Operational Costs $0.00 Severely Disabled (SH) Administration Costs $0.00 Administrator Costs $0.00 Severely Disabled (SH) Center Classroom Cost $0.00 Staff to Student Ratio 0:0 $0.00 Marin county oFFice oF education 4400 DARPPAEFNTDICES Severely Disabled (SH) Integrated Classroom Cost $0.00 Staff to Student Ratio 0:0 $0.00 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 4411 APPENDDRICAEFST Table 5: Summary of Classroom Costs for Emotionally Disturbed Students, 2009-10 Marin County Operated Programs Summary of Classroom Costs 2009/10 Emotionally Disturbed (ED) Classrooms Salary Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Number of Classes ___ Total Salary $0.00 AVG Class Salary $0.00 Paraprofessionals ___ FTEs $0.00 DIS Services & Operational costs per Class Nurses ___ FTEs $0.00 Occupational Therapist Services ___ FTEs $0.00 Psychologists____ days a week $0.00 Speech Therapists (ST) ___ FTEs $0.00 Adaptive Physical Education (APE) ___ FTEs $0.00 Low Incidence ___ FTEs $0.00 Physical Therapy (PT) ___ FTEs $0.00 Total $0.00 Program Operational Costs $0.00 ED/SH Administration Costs $0.00 Administrator Costs $0.00 Program Classroom Cost $0.00 Staff to Student Ratio 0:0 $0.00 Marin county oFFice oF education 4422 DARPPAEFNTDICES Table 6: Summary of Classroom Costs for Students with Nonsevere Disabilities, 2009-10 Non-Severe Salary Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Number of Classes ___ Total Salary $0.00 AVG Class Salary $0.00 Paraprofessionals ___ FTEs $0.00 DIS Services & Operational costs per Class Nurses ___ FTEs $0.00 Occupational Therapist Services ___ FTEs $0.00 Psychologists____ days a week $0.00 Speech Therapists (ST) ___ FTEs $0.00 Adaptive Physical Education (APE) ___ FTEs $0.00 Low Incidence ___ FTEs $0.00 Physical Therapy (PT) ___ FTEs $0.00 Total $0.00 Program Operational Costs $0.00 ED/SH Administration Costs $0.00 Administrator Costs $0.00 Program Classroom Cost $0.00 Staff to Student Ratio 0:0 $0.00 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 4433 APPENDDRICAEFST Table 7: Summary of Classroom Costs for ATP students, 2009-10 Marin County Operated Programs Summary of Classroom Costs 2009/10 Vocational Education (ATP) Salary Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Number of Classes ___ Total Salary $0.00 Average Class Salary $0.00 Paraprofessionals ___ FTEs $0.00 DIS Services & Operational costs per Class Nurses ___ FTEs $0.00 Occupational Therapist Services ___ FTEs $0.00 Psychologists ____ days a week $0.00 Speech Therapists (ST) ___ FTEs $0.00 Adaptive Physical Education (APE) ___ FTEs $0.00 Low Incidence ___ FTEs $0.00 Physical Therapist (PT) ___ FTEs $0.00 Total $0.00 Program Operational Costs $0.00 SH Administration Costs $0.00 Administrator Costs $0.00 Program Classroom Cost $0.00 Staff to Student Ratio 0:0 $0.00 Marin county oFFice oF education 4444 DARPPAEFNTDICES Table 8: Summary of Classroom Costs for Students with Autism, 2009-10 Autism Classes Salary Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Number of Classes ___ Total Salary $0.00 AVG Class Salary $0.00 Paraprofessionals ___ FTEs $0.00 DIS Services & Operational costs per Class Nurses ___ FTEs $0.00 Occupational Therapist Services ___ FTEs $0.00 Psychologists ____ days a week $0.00 Speech Therapists (ST) ___ FTEs $0.00 Adaptive Physical Education (APE) ___ FTEs $0.00 Low Incidence ___ FTEs $0.00 Total $0.00 Program Operational Costs $0.00 SH Administration Costs $0.00 Administrator Costs $0.00 Program Classroom Cost $0.00 Staff to Student Ratio 0:0 $0.00 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 4455 APPENDDRICAEFST Table 9: Summary of Classroom Costs for Preschool Early Intervention Program, 2009-10 Preschool Early Intervention Program Salary Teacher Name $0.00 Teacher Name $0.00 Number of Classes ___ Total Salary $0.00 AVG Class Salary $0.00 Paraprofessionals ___ FTEs $0.00 DIS Services & Operational costs per Class Nurses ___ FTEs $0.00 Occupational Therapist Services ___ FTEs $0.00 Psychologists ____ days a week $0.00 Speech Therapists (ST) ___ FTEs $0.00 Adaptive Physical Education (APE) ___ FTEs $0.00 Low Incidence ___ FTEs $0.00 Physical Therapist (PT) ___ FTEs $0.00 Total $0.00 Program Operational Costs $0.00 SH Administration Costs $0.00 Administrator Costs $0.00 Program Classroom Cost $0.00 Staff to Student Ratio 0:0 $0.00 Marin county oFFice oF education 4466 DARPPAEFNTDICES Table 10: Percentage of Students Served in SDCs for the severely disabled, sorted by district of residence Special Education/Marin County Programs Percentage of Students Served in Severe SDCs sorted by DOR December 2009 CASEMIS 1Adjusted 2009- Autism ED MODERATE/SEVERE 10 P-1 % of % of Total % of Total Total Total Total Total ADA Students Students ADA% Students Students Students Students K-12 Served Served DISTRICT Served Bolinas-Stinson Union School District Dixie School District Kentfield School District Laguna Joint. School District Lagunitas School District Larkspur School District Lincoln School District Marin COE Mill Valley School District Nicasio School District Novato Unified School District Reed Union School District Ross School District Ross Valley School District San Rafael City Schools Sausalito-Marin City School District Shoreline Unified School District Tamalpais Union High School District Union Joint. School District Total Students by Program 1ADA adjusted by adding 93% of total Preschool and Adult pupil count to actual P1 ADA 2 Note: P-1 ADA includes Special Education and Court/Community programs Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 4477 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix B Sample Teacher Case Management Duties Marin county oFFice oF education 4488 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 4499 APPENDDRICAEFST SAMPLE TEACHER CASE MANAGEMENT DUTIES Teacher Case Management Duties Case management duties for special education teachers include, but are not limited to, the following duties: Effective case management calls for the special education teacher to: • Develop, implement, and monitor IEP goals and behavior plans • Conduct student assessments • Contact and consult with general education staff, service providers, and families • Monitor and adjust the provision of services, accommodations and modifications • Perform other duties as related to caseload management Monitoring Students on Caseload  Maintain and update your caseload binder. Binder contents for each student: • Personal information sheet • Parent contact logs • Teacher contact logs • Accommodations/modifications sheet • Goals and behavior plan • Certificate/diploma status (if applicable) • Extended school year forms  Send out introductory letters to parents  Provide teachers with a list of accommodations/modifications for their IEP students  Communicate face-to-face with teachers of students on your caseload in addition to any written correspondence  Schedule IEP meetings with the site administrator (If this is a high profile IEP, contact the Program Manager) • Send parent invitation • Contact general education teachers for progress (if applicable) • Update goals with current information on present levels  Conduct academic assessment (formal, as needed and informal)  Develop draft goals (with input from general education teachers if applicable) Marin county oFFice oF education 5500 DARPPAEFNTDICES  Develop draft behavior plan with school psychologists  Chair and facilitate IEP meetings for all caseload students  Update and communicate progress on goals to parents  Monitor that DIS services are delivered as stated in the IEP  Any follow-up necessary for the IEP Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5511 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix C Online Training Resources for Paraprofessionals Los Angeles County Office of Education Marin county oFFice oF education 5522 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5533 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix D SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT Marin County Office of Education, Special Education 2009‐2010 Professional Development Schedule, 2009-10 TOPIC PRESENTER ATTENDEES DATE Goals and procedures SCERTS (Orange M.Gardner, R. May 5‐7, 2010 for assessment and County) Beeman, K. Dommen, educational C. Fass, H. Joffe, J. programming Lucero, L. Duffield Assessing Second Jomar Lococo, M.S., SLP Staff March 15, 2010 Language Learners CCC‐SLP S.M.I.L.E. Meriam Gardner 7 EI Staff March 15, 2010 Educational Benefit in Tana Donaghy SDC Certficated Staff February 11‐12, 2010 a Special Education Classroom Psychopharmacology Seth Hammerman, MCOE and District January 29, 2010 for Children and M.D. Psychs Adolescents Cochlear Implants (obtained by K. Staff and Parents January 25, 2010 Petree) working with students with Cochlear Implants SLP Inservice Meriam Gardner Paraeducators October 23, 20009 and December 4, 2010 CPS Training M.Gardner and T. December 1, 2010 McLaughlin staff Facilitation Skills Contra Costa SELPA Fass, Kline, Sagun, January 21, 2010 Workshop Biermann, Lucero, Faulkner Emergency Response MCOE Ed Services SDC Teachers and October 2, 2009 for Students with paraeducators (9) Diabetes Language Mill Valley SD J. Boyd Sept. 4, 2009 Marin county oFFice oF education 5544 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5555 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix E Study Agreement Marin county oFFice oF education 5566 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM