FCMAT
Miller Creek School District Report
special education department and program review
Read the report at Miller Creek School District ↗
Special Education Review
January 10, 2025
Miller Creek School District
Michael H. Fine
Chief Executive Officer
January 10, 2025
Becky Rosales, Superintendent
Miller Creek School District
380 Nova Albion Way
San Rafael, CA 94903
Dear Superintendent Rosales:
In October 2024, the Miller Creek School District and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team
(FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to conduct a review of the district’s special education pro-
gram. The agreement stated that FCMAT would perform the following:
1. Analyze special education teacher staffing ratios, class sizes and caseloads using statutory
requirements for mandated services and statewide guidelines, and make recommendations
for improvement, if any.
2. Review the efficiency of staffing allocations of special education paraeducators, per
Education Code requirements and/or industry standards, and make recommendations for
improvement, if any. Review the procedures for identifying the need for paraeducators,
including considerations related to the least restrictive environment and the processes
for monitoring the assignment of paraeducators and determining the need for continued
support from year to year (including classroom and 1-to-1 paraeducators).
3. Analyze staffing and caseloads for related service providers, including but not limited to
speech pathologists, psychologists, occupational/physical therapists, adaptive physical
education teachers and other staff who may be related service providers, and make
recommendations for improvement, if any.
4. Determine whether the district overidentifies students for special education services
compared to the statewide and countywide averages, and make recommendations for
reducing overidentification, if needed.
5. Review the Special Education Department’s organizational structure and staffing
within the district’s central office to determine whether its administration, clerical and
administrative support, program specialists, teachers on special assignment and overall
function are aligned with those of districts of comparable size and structure, and make
recommendations for greater efficiencies, if any.
This report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. FCMAT appreciates the opportunity
to serve the Miller Creek School District and extends its thanks to all the staff for their assistance during
fieldwork.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Fine
Chief Executive Officer
Michael H. Fine • Chief Executive Officer
1300 17th Street – City Centre, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 • Tel. 661-636-4611 • Fax 661-636-4647
www.fcmat.org
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
About FCMAT ..................................................................................................iii
Purpose and Services .............................................................................................iii
History .........................................................................................................................iv
Introduction .......................................................................................................v
Background ............................................................................................................................v
Study and Report Guidelines .............................................................................................v
Study Team .............................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1
Findings and Recommendations.................................................................3
Background and Context – Transforming Education
to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities .......................................3
Identification for Special Education .....................................................................5
District Enrollment .................................................................................................................5
Percentage of Students Enrolled in Special Education ...............................................5
Disproportionality in Special Education Identification.................................................7
Percentage of District Special Education Enrollment
Compared to the State .......................................................................................................11
Factors Influencing Special Education Identification .....................................12
Student Success Team Process ......................................................................................12
Multi-tiered Systems of Support ......................................................................................12
Parent/Guardian Requests for Special Education Assessments ............................13
District Organization and Central Office Special
Education Staffing ...................................................................................................14
District Organization ...........................................................................................................14
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District i
Table of Contents
Special Education Central Office Staffing .....................................................................14
Special Education Staffing Comparison ........................................................................14
Special Education Department Positions .....................................................................15
Special Education Teacher Staffing ....................................................................17
Resource Specialist Program Teachers ..........................................................................17
Staffing Guidelines and Industry Standard Caseloads for
Special Day Class Programs ............................................................................................18
Special Education Annual Performance Report Measures ......................................19
District Students Attending MCOE Regional Programs ............................................19
Special Education Instructional Assistant Staffing ....................................................20
Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads .....................................................23
Appendix ........................................................................................................ 27
Appendix A – Study Agreement ........................................................................28
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District ii
About FCMAT Purpose and Services
About FCMAT
Purpose and Services
FCMAT was created by the California Legislature to help California’s transitional kindergarten through
grade 14 local educational agencies (LEAs) avoid fiscal insolvency. Today, FCMAT helps LEAs identify,
prevent and resolve financial, management, program, data, and oversight challenges; provides professional
learning; produces and provides software, checklists, manuals and other tools; and offers other related
school business and data services.
FCMAT may be asked to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school,
community college, county office of education, the state superintendent of public instruction, or the
Legislature.
When FCMAT is asked for help with management assistance or a fiscal crisis, FCMAT management and
staff work closely with the requesting LEA to meet their needs. Often this means conducting a formal
study using a FCMAT study team that coordinates with the LEA for on-site fieldwork to evaluate specified
operational areas and subsequently produces a written report with findings and recommendations for
improvement.
For more immediate needs in a specific area, FCMAT offers short-term technical assistance from a FCMAT
staff member with the required expertise.
To help meet the need for qualified chief business officials (CBOs) in LEAs, FCMAT offers four different CBO
training and mentoring programs that consist of 11 or 12 diverse two-day training sessions over the course
of a full year.
For agencies with professional learning needs, FCMAT offers workshops on specific topics. Popular topics
include associated student body operations, use of FCMAT’s Projection-Pro online financial forecasting
software, use of FCMAT’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) calculators, and data reporting for the
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). FCMAT staff and management also
frequently make presentations at various professional conferences.
The California School Information Services (CSIS) service of FCMAT helps the California Department of
Education (CDE) operate CALPADS; helps LEAs learn about CALPADS, resolve data issues and meet
reporting requirements; provides LEAs with training and leadership in data management; developed and
continues to host and improve the Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) web-based financial
reporting system for all California LEAs; and provides ed-data.org, which gives educators, policymakers,
the Legislature, parents and the public quick access to timely and comprehensive data about K-12 educa-
tion in California.
Since it was formed, FCMAT has provided LEAs with the types of help described above on more than 2,000
occasions.
FCMAT’s administrative agent is the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. FCMAT is led by Michael
H. Fine, Chief Executive Officer, and is funded by appropriations in the state budget and modest fees to
requesting agencies.
Workshop schedules, manuals, presentation slide decks, Projection-Pro software, the LCFF Calculator, past
reports, an online help desk, and many other resources are available for download or use at no charge on
FCMAT’s website.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District iii
About FCMAT History
History
FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 (Chapter 1213, Statutes of 1991) and Education Code 42127.8.
Assembly Bill 107 (Chapter 282, Statutes of 1997) added Education Code 49080, which charged FCMAT
with responsibility for CSIS and its statewide data management work, and Assembly Bill 1115 (Chapter 78,
Statutes of 1999) codified CSIS’ mission.
Assembly Bill 1200 created a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work
together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (Chapter
52, Statutes of 2004) gave FCMAT specific responsibilities for districts that have received emergency state
loans.
In January 2006, Senate Bill 430 (Chapter 357, Statutes of 2005) amended Education Code 42128.7, and
Assembly Bill 1366 (Chapter 360, Statutes of 2005) amended Education Codes 42128.7 and 84041. These
new laws expanded FCMAT’s services to include charter schools and community colleges, respectively.
Assembly Bill 1840 (Chapter 426, Statutes of 2018) changed how fiscally insolvent districts are administered
once an emergency appropriation has been made, shifting oversight responsibilities from the state to the
local county office of education to be more consistent with the principles of local control, and giving FCMAT
new responsibilities associated with the process.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District iv
Introduction
Introduction
Background
Located in Marin County, the Miller Creek School District serves students in transitional kindergarten
through grade 8 (TK-8). The district comprises three elementary schools and one middle school. In the
2023-24 school year, the district enrolled 1,813 TK-8 students.1
The district is a member of the Marin County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA), which is a regional
service delivery model for special education. In 2023-24, 13.62% of the district’s students were identified as
requiring special education, marking an increase of 2.65 percentage points since the 2019-20 school year.
In October 2024, the district and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into
an agreement for FCMAT to conduct a review of the district’s special education program.
Study and Report Guidelines
FCMAT visited the district on November 19-20, 2024, to conduct interviews with central office and school
administrators, special education teachers, related service providers, and special education paraeducators.
Following fieldwork, FCMAT reviewed and analyzed data and documents. This report is the result of those
activities.
FCMAT’s reports focus on systems and processes that may need improvement. Those that may be func-
tioning well are generally not commented on in FCMAT’s reports. In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the
Associated Press Stylebook and its own short internal style guide, which emphasize plain language, capital-
ize relatively few terms, and strive for conciseness, clarity and simplicity.
Study Team
The study team was composed of the following members:
Carolynne Beno, Ed.D., CFE Shayleen Harte
FCMAT Interim Chief Analyst FCMAT Deputy Executive Officer II
Cassady Clifton
FCMAT Technical Writer
All team members reviewed the draft report to confirm accuracy and achieve consensus on the final
recommendations.
1California Department of Education. (2023). 2023-24 Enrollment for charter and non-charter schools. DataQuest. Available at: https://dq.cde.
ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrCharterLevels.aspx?cds=2165318&agglevel=district&year=2023-24.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District v
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Identification for Special Education
The district’s census day enrollment has declined over the past five years, while its special education
enrollment has increased by 2.65 percentage points.2 In the 2023-24 school year, 13.62% of the district’s
students in transitional kindergarten through grade eight were identified as requiring special education.2
This percentage is higher than the Marin County average, though slightly below the statewide average.3
Identifying students for special education who do not require specialized instruction increases special edu-
cation costs and can be detrimental to the students. Special education students may experience stigma,
reduced access to the rigorous instruction, and fewer opportunities to interact with their typically devel-
oping peers. The rising percentage of students identified for special education in the district seems to be
influenced by the district’s student success team (SST) process and multitiered systems of support (MTSS),
as described below.
• Student Success Team — An SST is a school-based group that meets to identify appropri-
ate interventions and supports for students with learning differences, behavioral needs,
and/or social-emotional needs before considering a special education assessment. Every
school district should have an SST process.
Staff reported that they use the district’s SST process to provide intervention and support
through the general education program. However, some staff members noted that certain
teachers’ views on the types of learning differences that should be accommodated in the
general education program may prevent the SST process from being used as intended — to
provide data-driven interventions that are monitored and adjusted over time.
• Multi-tiered Systems of Support — MTSS is a framework of standardized supports and
interventions designed to address students’ academic, behavioral and social-emotional
differences and needs.
Staff reported that the district has implemented an MTSS framework, which includes tiered
levels of support and interventions: Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. However, some staff members
indicated that certain teachers view the special education program as the most appropriate
support for a wide range of learning differences and student needs, even when these could
be accommodated and supported within the general education program. This perspective
may limit students’ opportunities to benefit from general education interventions, increase
requests for special education assessments, and result in a higher number of students
being placed in the special education program.
Special Education Department’s Organizational Structure and Staffing
FCMAT compared the central office staffing of Miller Creek School District’s Special Education Department
to the responses from seven similar-sized districts that participated in FCMAT’s staffing survey. The team
found that Miller Creek has 0.40 full-time equivalent (FTE) fewer administrator/leadership positions support-
ing special education and 0.51 FTE fewer special education administrative support positions in the central
office than the other districts.
2California Department of Education. (2023). 2023-24 Enrollment for charter and non-charter schools. DataQuest. Available at: https://dq.cde.
ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrCharterLevels.aspx?cds=2165318&agglevel=district&year=2023-24.
3California Department of Education. (2023). 2023-24 Enrollment by ethnicity and grade. DataQuest. Available at: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/dqcensus/EnrEthGrd.aspx?cds=21&agglevel=county&year=2023-24&ro=y.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 1
Executive Summary
Although Miller Creek’s Special Education Department includes the typical positions seen in other simi-
lar-sized school districts, it lacks a behavior intervention specialist. Staff reported that student behavior
support needs directly influence the assignment of 1-to-1 instructional assistants and student placements in
Marin County Office of Education (MCOE) regional programs or nonpublic schools. Adding a behavior inter-
vention specialist position would allow the district to assess students’ behavioral needs, develop targeted
interventions, and provide support for staff in implementing behavior intervention plans. This addition could
also help the district serve more students within its own programs and reduce reliance on MCOE regional
programs or nonpublic schools.
Special Education Teacher Staffing
The district’s resource specialist staffing exceeds the standard set by Education Code (EC) 56362(c) by
2.04 FTE. However, because the students supported by resource specialists are not evenly distributed into
groups of 28 across district schools, this additional staffing seems necessary to meet the actual needs of
students.
The district’s average caseload for special day classes (SDCs) for school-age students with mild-to-moder-
ate support needs is 9.50 students-per-teacher, which is below the industry standard range of 12-15 stu-
dents-per-teacher. However, given that the district operates only two SDCs, reducing SDC teacher posi-
tions based on the current caseload numbers is not feasible.
Special Education Instructional Assistant Staffing
The district’s staffing for instructional assistants in the resource specialist program exceeds the industry
standard by 0.95 FTE. Although the district’s SDC staffing ratio for classroom instructional assistants also
exceeds the industry standard, this is largely due to the grades 3-5 SDC class, where students spend part
of the day in general education classrooms. Consequently, the SDC classroom instructional assistant staff-
ing seems appropriate to meet student needs.
The district has eight instructional assistants assigned to provide 1-to-1 student support. While there is no
industry standard for comparison, this number is relatively high for a district of this size when compared to
other school districts across the state. The district’s assessment process for determining a student’s need
for one-on-one instructional assistant support aligns with industry standards; however, staff reported that
this process is not applied consistently.
Related Service Provider Staffing
FCMAT compared the district’s staffing for occupational therapists, school psychologists, and speech and
language pathologists to the Education Code or industry standard provider-to-student ratios. The district
is staffed within the industry standard for speech and language pathologists. However, it is staffed 0.5 FTE
above the industry standard for occupational therapists and 1.6 FTE above the industry standard for school
psychologists. The district should review occupational therapist caseloads, assessment loads, direct and
consultation service minutes, and student needs to determine if a reduction in occupational therapist staff-
ing is feasible.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 2
Findings and Recommendations Background and Context – Transforming Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
Findings and Recommendations
Background and Context – Transforming
Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with
Disabilities
Over the past two decades, educational reform movements emphasizing accountability have highlighted
achievement gaps among students based on factors such as race and ethnicity, family income, language
ability, and disability. Although California has made some progress in reducing inequities in educational
outcomes for these student groups, those with disabilities remain among the lowest-performing subgroups.
In 2013, California convened a statewide special education task force dedicated to ending the persistent
poor outcomes for California’s students with disabilities, including eligible infants, toddlers, preschoolers,
and students up to age 22 in kindergarten through grade 12. The task force’s purpose was to study the
complex systems designed to serve the students and provide recommendations to the State Board of
Education, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the California Department of Education (CDE).
The CDE’s project summary for the Statewide Special Education Task Force stated:
California’s current policies, including funding, credentialing, and a range of service deliv-
ery options, tend to ‘bolt on’ special education to general education. While there are cer-
tainly examples throughout the state of well-integrated models of supports, these are the
exceptions rather than the norm. Our prevailing model has made it acceptable, and in some
instances seem desirable, to isolate special education as a unique and separate system that
parallels general education.
The summary further explained that operating special education as a separate program contradicts current
research, which shows:
Inclusive practices, integrated systems, and coherence are essential to provide high-quality,
cost-effective special education programs within (rather than apart from) a well-articulated
system of education.
In March 2015, the Statewide Special Education Task Force published One system: Reforming Education to
Serve All Students, Report of California's Statewide Task Force on Special Education, its report on the state
of special education in California. This report identified seven distinct and interconnected areas of focus to
improve outcomes for students with disabilities:
1. Early learning.
2. Evidence-based school and classroom practices.
3. Educator preparation and professional learning.
4. Assessment.
5. Accountability.
6. Family and student engagement.
7. Special education financing.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 3
Findings and Recommendations Background and Context – Transforming Education to Improve Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
Among the areas of focus and many recommendations in the 2015 report on one system was the predomi-
nant theme that California’s special education system would improve if one coherent system were designed
in which general education and special education work together to meet the needs of all students. The
report explained:
In a coherent system of education, all children and students with disabilities are considered
general education students first; and all educators, regardless of which students they are
assigned to serve, have a collective responsibility to see that all children receive the educa-
tion and the supports they need to maximize their development and potential, allowing them
to participate meaningfully in the nation’s economy and democracy.
The CDE’s project summary also identified the need to transform the understanding of special education
from the perception of it as:
A place where students go to receive more or different services, to a viewpoint that includes
special education services as one of many programs of support under the umbrella of general
education.
In 2020, the CDE commissioned WestEd, a nonprofit dedicated to fostering “success for every learner,”4
to analyze policy and systemic changes impacting students with disabilities since the 2015 report on one
system. The 2021 WestEd report, California’s Progress Toward Achieving One system: Reforming Education
to Serve All Students, explained that the 2015 report on one system was intended to create momentum and
discourse in California’s efforts to reform special education. To evaluate these efforts, WestEd reviewed the
seven focus areas outlined in the 2015 report on one system and provided additional recommendations in
each area. WestEd concluded that “numerous improvements have been made to California’s general and
special education landscapes.”
Guided by the insights from the 2015 report on one system and the 2021 WestEd report, LEAs should
focus on achieving coherence, fostering inclusive practices, and integrating student support systems. This
approach is essential for building a comprehensive educational system that promotes positive outcomes for
all students. LEAs need to recognize that students receiving special education services are general edu-
cation students first and operate with the understanding that special education is one of the many support
programs within general education, not a place where students go to receive more or different services.
These tenets will inform the analysis of the district’s Special Education Department and its staffing structure
throughout this report.
4WestEd. (n.d.) About us. Available at https://www.wested.org/about-us.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 4
Identification for Special Education
Before examining the district’s special education staffing, it is critical to consider the population the pro-
gram serves: the students receiving special education services. This section provides an overview of data
and trends related to the district’s special education enrollment.
District Enrollment
From 2019-20 through 2023-24, the district’s census day enrollment for students in transitional kindergar-
ten through grade 8 (TK-8) declined by 211 students, as shown in Figure 1 below.
Census Day Enrollment of District Students, 2019-20 — 2023-24
2500
2,024
2000
1,813
1500
1000
500
0
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
Figure 1. A graph showing a decline of 211 students in the district’s census day enrollment from 2019-20 to 2023-24.
Source: Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter Schools - Miller Creek (CDE).
Percentage of Students Enrolled in Special Education
Despite the decline in total district enrollment from 2019-20 to 2023-24, special education enrollment for
students in grades TK-8 grew by 25 students during this period — a 2.65 percentage point increase, as
shown in Figure 2 on the following page.
tnemllornE
tcirtsiD
Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education
Number of Students
School Year
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 5
Percentage of District Students Enrolled in Special Education, 2019-20 — 2023-24
16%
13.62%
14%
12%
10.97%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
Figure 2. A graph showing the 2.65 percentage point increase in the district’s special education enrollment from 2019-20 to 2023-24.
Source: Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter Schools - Miller Creek (CDE).
Special Education Enrollment by District School
FCMAT calculated the percentage of students enrolled in special education at each school within the dis-
trict, as shown in Figure 3 on the following page. Because special day class (SDC) enrollment is not equally
distributed across the district’s schools, FCMAT adjusted the percentage for Lucas Valley Elementary
to account for its unique SDC enrollment. This involved excluding the number of students in special day
classes from both the total school enrollment and the school’s special education enrollment.
noitacudE
laicepS
ni
stnedutS
fo
egatnecreP
Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education
Percentage of Students
School Year
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 6
Percentage of Students Enrolled in Special Education by School, 2023-24
18%
16%
16.02%
14%
12%
11.89%
10% 10.79%
10.23%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Lucas Valley Elementary Mary E Silveira Elementary Miller Creek Middle Vallecito Elementary
Figure 3. A chart showing the percentage of district students enrolled in special education at each school for the 2023-24 school year. The data
indicates that Mary E Silveira has between 4.13% and 5.79% more students in special education compared to other schools in the district.
Source: Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter Schools - Miller Creek (CDE) and district-provided data.
Note: The percentage for Lucas Valley Elementary School, which is the only school with district-operated SDCs, was calculated by excluding the
number of students in SDCs from both the total school enrollment and the school’s special education enrollment.
The percentage of students enrolled in special education at Mary E Silveira Elementary is significantly
higher than that of the other district schools. The district needs to evaluate these differences in special
education identification rates by school, considering the factors outlined in the “Factors Influencing Special
Education Identification” section of this report.
Disproportionality in Special Education Identification
Disproportionality within special education is defined as “the extent to which membership in a given group
affects the probability of being placed in a specific disability category.”5 In simpler terms, it refers to the dis-
proportionate identification of student groups, such as English learners, males, and racial or ethnic minori-
ties, for special education.
5Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999). Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of school-related eco-
nomic and demographic variables. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 198.
noitacudE
laicepS
ni
stnedutS
fo
egatnecreP
Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education
Percentage of Students
District School
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 7
Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education
Higher than Expected Identification of Students who Identify as
Male in Special Education
District students who identify as male are significantly more likely to be identified for special education,
comprising 53% of all students but 70% of special education students. In contrast, female students repre-
sent 47% of all students but only 30% of those in special education, as shown in figure 4 below. The dis-
trict’s percentage of male students in special education exceeds the statewide average of 67%, as calcu-
lated from DataQuest.
Percentage of Students Enrolled in Special Education by Gender, 2023-24
Males| Females
Percentage of Students
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
70%
Special Education
30%
53%
All Students
47%
Figure 4. A chart showing the overrepresentation of male students in special education compared to the total district student population in
grades TK-8 for the 2023-24 school year.
Source: Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter Schools – Miller Creek (CDE).
The higher representation of males in special education is influenced by factors such as referral bias, where
boys are more likely to be referred due to academic or behavioral challenges, and differences in how
teachers perceive student behavior, with boys often receiving more negative attention. Consequently, it is
important for LEAs to examine special education referral rates by gender and provide professional develop-
ment to address any disparities.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 8
Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education
Racial and Ethnic Representation in Special Education
Enrollment
The racial and ethnic composition of students enrolled in the district’s special education program in 2023-
24 was generally proportionate to the district’s total student population, as shown in Figure 5 below.
However, students who identify as Hispanic or Latino are overrepresented in special education, compris-
ing 30.8% of special education students compared to 24.8% of the total student population. Conversely,
students who identify as Asian are underrepresented, making up only 2.0% of special education students,
despite constituting 5.5% of the total student population.
Race/Ethnicity of Students in Special Education Compared to the District’s Total Student Population,
2023-24
Special Education Students | All Students
Percentage of Students
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
54.3%
White
56.3%
8.1%
Two or More Races
10.4%
0.8%
Not Reported
0.8%
30.8%
Hispanic or Latino
24.8%
0.8%
Filipino
1.0%
2.0%
Asian
5.5%
3.2%
African American
1.1%
Figure 5. A chart showing the percentage of students in special education compared to the total district student population in grades TK-8,
broken down by race and ethnicity, for the 2023-24 school year. The data suggests the district may be over-identifying Hispanic or Latino stu-
dents and under-identifying Asian students for special education services.
Source: Enrollment by Ethnicity for Charter and Non-Charter Schools in 2023-24 - Miller Creek (CDE).
Higher-than-Expected Identification of Students who are
Hispanic and Latino in Special Education
Although the reasons for the district’s higher-than-expected identification of students who are Hispanic and
Latino in special education are unclear, it is imperative that the district only identifies students with dis-
abilities who truly qualify for special education. Even the most efficient special education programs do not
receive sufficient funding to support their programs, making it crucial that these limited resources are used
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 9
Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education
exclusively for qualifying students. Furthermore, while special education services are critical for supporting
students with disabilities, students identified for special education may face stigma, lower expectations,
and reduced access to the general education curriculum and teachers. These factors can adversely affect
their academic achievement and long-term outcomes.
The district needs to evaluate whether it is overidentifying Hispanic and Latino students for special edu-
cation. The Association of California School Administrators has published a brief, The Disproportionality of
Latinx Students in Special Education, which outlines common causes of disproportionality and offers strat-
egies for addressing them. The district should review this brief and use it to guide an investigation into the
possible overidentification of Hispanic and Latino students for special education.
Lower-than-Expected Identification of Students who are Asian
for Special Education
The district also needs to investigate its lower-than-expected identification of students who are Asian for
special education. While the reasons for this underrepresentation are unclear, academic literature provides
valuable insights. In 2017, Saili Kulkarni reviewed 15 academic studies on the special education identifica-
tion of Asian students and found that most studies reported an underrepresentation of Asian American
students in special education.6 This underrepresentation was often attributed to factors such as cultural
differences, parental beliefs about the stigma of disability labels, and language barriers within school dis-
tricts. Another commonly cited factor was the model minority myth, which stereotypes all Asian Americans
as academically successful and hardworking, while overlooking the diversity within this group.
It is imperative that the district identify all students who qualify for special education services. Under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), public schools are required to identify, locate, and evalu-
ate all children suspected of having a disability. Failing to identify a student with a disability for special edu-
cation can deny them their right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA. This failure
can negatively affect the student’s academic achievement and outcomes and may also obligate the district
to provide compensatory educational services.
English Learners in Special Education
English learners are frequently overidentified for special education.7 In the 2023-24 school year, 18.41% of
all California students were identified as English learners, while 23.47% of students in special education
were identified as English learners.6 This trend may also be reflected in the district’s identification of English
learners for special education.
In the 2023-24 school year, 14.51% of all district students in grades TK-8 were identified as English learners,
but 17.00% of students in special education were identified as English learners.8 To minimize the risk of mis-
identification,, the district needs to monitor the identification of English learners in special education on an
annual basis and provide professional learning in proper special education identification as necessary.
6Kulkarni, S. S. (2017). Disproportionate representation of Asian American students in special education: A systematic review of the literature.
Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 17(2), 19-33. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/saili-kulkarni/1/.
7Sanatullova-Allison, E., & Robison-Young, V. A. (2016). Overrepresentation: An overview of the issues surrounding the identification of English
language learners with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 31(2), n2.
8California Department of Education. (2023). 2023-24 Enrollment for charter and non-charter schools. DataQuest. Available at: https://dq.cde.
ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrCharterLevels.aspx?cds=2165318&agglevel=district&year=2023-24.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 10
Findings and Recommendations Identification for Special Education
Percentage of District Special Education Enrollment
Compared to the State
FCMAT compared the total and special education enrollment for grades TK-8 in the district to noncharter
school enrollment figures for Marin County and the state, as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Grades TK through 8 Total and Special Education Enrollment Comparison, 2023-24
2023-24 Miller Creek School District Marin County California
Grades TK-8 Total Non-Charter
1,813 19,373 3,461,479
School Enrollment
Grades TK-8 Special Education Non-
247 2,517 479,689
Charter School Enrollment
Percentage 13.62% 12.99% 13.86%
Sources: Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter Schools - Miller Creek (CDE) and Enrollment for Charter and Non-Charter Schools - Marin
County and State (CDE).
In 2023-24, 13.62% of the district’s students in grades TK-8 were identified as requiring special education.
This percentage is higher than the Marin County average for students attending noncharter schools in
those grades but slightly lower than the statewide average for noncharter school students. However, the
district needs to identify and address factors contributing to the increasing percentage of students in spe-
cial education to ensure only qualifying students receive special education services.
Recommendations
The district should:
1. Annually monitor the percentage of students who qualify for special education and assess
the proportionality of students in special education compared to the overall student
population, at a minimum, by gender, race, ethnicity, and English learner status. Provide
professional development on the proper identification of students for special education as
necessary.
2. Determine why Mary E Silveira Elementary identifies a significantly higher percentage of
students for special education compared to other elementary schools within the district.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 11
Findings and Recommendations Factors Influencing Special Education Identification
Factors Influencing Special Education
Identification
The rising percentage of students identified for special education in the district is influenced by the student
success team (SST) process, the multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), and parent/guardian requests for
special education assessments, as outlined below.
Student Success Team Process
Education Code 56303 states, “A pupil shall be referred for special educational instruction and services
only after the resources of the regular education program have been considered and, where appropriate,
utilized.” Identifying a student for special education before implementing general education interventions
does not best serve the student.
All districts should have an SST process to identify interventions and supports for students with learning
differences, behavioral needs, or social-emotional needs before considering a special education assess-
ment. Staff reported that schools are using the district’s SST process to provide intervention and support
for students through the general education program. The district also has an assessment planning team
that provides decision support for school teams, which use a “Closer Look” form to monitor a student’s
progress in intervention and determine whether a special education assessment is necessary.
Staff reported that the assessment planning team and the “Closer Look” form were implemented to prevent
the SST process from being viewed as a direct pathway to special education assessments. The goal was
to ensure that the SST process serves as an opportunity for students to receive appropriate general edu-
cation interventions tailored to their differing needs. However, staff indicated that certain teacher’s beliefs
about the types of learning differences that should be accommodated within general education may still
result in the SST process not being used as intended for some students.
Multi-tiered Systems of Support
Multi-tiered systems of support is a framework of standardized supports and interventions for students’
academic, behavioral and social-emotional differences and needs. Staff reported the district has imple-
mented an MTSS framework with three levels of support — Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 — and uses a con-
sultancy protocol to help teachers in offering Tier 2 interventions. However, staff noted that intervention
opportunities are not equal across district schools. For example, Lucas Valley Elementary no longer has an
intervention teacher due to the district’s spending reduction plan, which reallocated resources to schools
with higher student needs.
Staff reported that some teachers view the special education program as the most suitable support for
many learning differences and student support needs, even when these needs could be accommodated
and supported within the general education program. This belief may limit students’ access to general edu-
cation interventions, lead to an increase in requests for special education assessments, and contribute to a
rise in the number of students placed in the special education program.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 12
Findings and Recommendations Factors Influencing Special Education Identification
Parent/Guardian Requests for Special Education
Assessments
Staff stated that district schools receive numerous parent/guardian requests for special education assess-
ments, particularly for students in grades TK-2, and often following parent/student conferences. The dis-
trict has started tracking whether students offered a special education assessment ultimately qualify for
services. Staff reported that at Lucas Valley Elementary, 48% of students assessed in 2022-23 and 46% in
2023-24 did not qualify for special education. This high percentage, compared to what is observed across
the state, suggests that intervention and support opportunities within the general education program may
not have been fully used before the decision to pursue a special education assessment.
Staff also explained that some parent/guardian requests for special education assessments are prompted
by a pediatrician’s recommendation, often for conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). To qualify for special education, a student must meet a two-part eligibility test (commonly referred
to as the two-pronged test), which requires that the student:
• Meet the definition of one of the 14 disability categories in the IDEA.
• Require specially designed instruction.
Special education services should be reserved for students who meet the eligibility criteria for specialized
support. While a student with ADHD may meet the definition of one of the 14 disability categories under the
IDEA, they may not require specially designed instruction. In such cases, the student would not qualify for
special education.
School districts can use Section 504 Plans to support students with disabilities who do not require special-
ized instruction. These formal plans specify the necessary accommodations and services to be provided
within the general education setting. The district needs to assess whether additional training and support
for the Section 504 process are necessary to better serve these students.
Recommendations
The district should:
1. Ensure consistent application of the two-pronged test to determine eligibility for special
education during students’ initial and triennial IEP meetings.
2. Assess its Section 504 procedures and processes, and determine whether additional
training and/or support are needed.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 13
Findings and Recommendations District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing
District Organization and Central Office Special
Education Staffing
District Organization
The organizational structure of a school district is crucial to the effectiveness of its special education pro-
gram. An optimal structure fosters effective communication and collaboration across departments within
the district’s central office and schools. This collaboration is essential to meet the unique needs of students
with disabilities and implement evidence-based practices that support inclusive education.
The district’s administrative cabinet includes the superintendent, the chief business official, and the deputy
superintendent overseeing educational services and human resources. The director of special educa-
tion reports directly to the superintendent and meets with them regularly. Staff reported that the director
collaborates with other cabinet members on activities such as budget oversight, expenditure monitoring,
and staffing. This positive practice promotes coherence and prevents the special education program from
operating as a separate system within the district.
Special Education Central Office Staffing
In 2024-25, the district has two positions within the central office dedicated to supporting special educa-
tion: a 1.00 full-time equivalent (FTE) director of special education and a 0.50 FTE administrative assistant.
Special Education Staffing Comparison
FCMAT conducted an informal survey of elementary school districts in California with student enrollment
and unduplicated pupil percentages (UPP) similar to those of Miller Creek Elementary School District.9 The
survey aimed to collect information on central office staffing within the school districts’ Special Education
departments:
• Central Office Administrator/Leadership Positions – Roles such as directors, assistant
directors, coordinators, program specialists, and teachers on special assignment (TOSAs).
These positions do not require an administrative credential.
• Central Office Administrative Support Positions – Roles such as secretaries, administra-
tive assistants, filing clerks, and data technicians.
Table 2 on the following page compares Miller Creek’s Special Education Department central office staffing
with data from the seven school districts that participated in FCMAT’s survey. On average, these school
districts have 1.40 FTE administrator/leadership positions supporting special education in the central office,
while Miller Creek reports a lower level of staffing at 1.00 FTE. For special education administrative sup-
port positions in the central office, the comparison school districts average 1.01 FTE, whereas Miller Creek
reports a lower level of staffing at 0.50 FTE.
9The term UPP refers to the percentage of students who are English learners, foster youth, or eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Each stu-
dent is counted only once, regardless of how many categories they qualify for.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 14
Findings and Recommendations District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing
Table 2. Administrator and Administrative Support Position Staffing Comparison
2023-24 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25
Census Day Census Day Administrator/ Administrative
District County Enrollment UPP% Leadership Position FTE Support Position FTE
Moraga Elementary Contra Costa 1,775 8.47% 1.00 0.60
Newcastle Elementary Placer 2,131 21.78% 1.00 1.00
Plumas Lake Elementary Yuba 1,604 44.92% 1.00 1.50
Ross Valley Elementary Marin 1,739 14.09% 0.80 1.00
Santa Cruz City Elementary Santa Cruz 1,768 40.60% 2.00 1.00
Saratoga Union Elementary Santa Clara 1,605 9.84% 2.00 1.00
Soquel Union Elementary Santa Cruz 1,566 37.64% 2.00 1.00
Average FTE 1.40 1.01
Miller Creek Marin 1,813 25.65% 1.00 0.50
Sources: Comparisons (Ed-Data) and FCMAT survey results.
Notes: Miller Creek was excluded from the average FTE calculations.
Teachers on special assignments were included in administrator/leadership FTE if they are ongoing positions and perform special education
program support functions in the central office.
Any variances in a school district’s actual FTE are due to FCMAT’s interpretation of the survey data.
Miller Creek has 0.40 FTE fewer administrator/leadership positions and 0.51 FTE fewer administrative sup-
port positions supporting special education compared to the surveyed school districts. The higher staffing
levels in these school districts may reflect the fact that most elementary school districts operate their own
special education programs for preschool-age students, whereas Miller Creek does not. If Miller Creek
were to begin operating its own preschool special education program, additional administrative support in
the Special Education Department may be necessary.
Special Education Department Positions
Overall, Miller Creek has the types of positions typically found in other school districts to support students
in special education, including special education teachers, paraeducators, speech and language patholo-
gists, and occupational therapists. However, the district does not have a behavior intervention specialist.
There is no established industry standard for behavior intervention specialists. However, school districts of
similar size to Miller Creek commonly have this position, which requires a Board Certified Behavior Analyst
(BCBA) certification. BCBAs provide direct behavior support services, train and consult with teachers and
staff, develop behavior intervention plans (BIPs), and conduct functional behavior assessments (FBAs).
The district may not have needed a behavior intervention specialist position in the past because the previ-
ous director of special education was a BCBA and could write BIPs and conduct FBAs. The district now has
a contract with a nonpublic agency for limited behavior consultation services.
However, staff reported an increase in student behavior support needs since the return to in-person learn-
ing following the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff also indicated that some students are placed in MCOE regional
programs or nonpublic schools due to behavioral challenges.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 15
Findings and Recommendations District Organization and Central Office Special Education Staffing
Hiring a behavior intervention specialist would help the district assess students’ behavioral needs, develop
BIPs, and provide staff with the support necessary to implement them effectively. This could allow the dis-
trict to serve more students within its own programs, reducing the need for placements in MCOE regional
programs and nonpublic schools.
Recommendations
The district should:
1. Assess the need for additional administrative support staffing in the Special Education
Department if it begins operating its own preschool special education program.
2. Evaluate the need for a district behavior intervention specialist position. If warranted,
create the position with a BCBA certification requirement and begin recruitment.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 16
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
Special Education Teacher Staffing
This section presents FCMAT’s analysis of the district’s special education teacher staffing, compared to
statewide guidelines and industry standards.
Resource Specialist Program Teachers
The Resource Specialist Program (RSP) provides targeted instructional support and services to students
with special education needs. RSP teachers play a critical role in managing caseloads, developing individ-
ualized education programs (IEPs), and collaborating with general education teachers to support student
success.
Education Code (EC) 56362(c) states:
Caseloads for resource specialists shall be stated in the local policies developed pursuant to
Section 56195.8 and in accordance with regulations established by the board. No resource
specialist shall have a caseload which exceeds 28 pupils.
The district’s agreement with the Miller Creek Educators Association/CTA/NEA (MCEA) does not specify a
maximum caseload for RSP teachers.
In 2024-25, the district has 6.0 FTE RSP teachers. Based on caseload estimates provided by the district,
these teachers managed the cases of 111 students, resulting in an average caseload of 18.5 students, as
shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Resource Specialist Teacher Staffing, 2024-25
Total Total Average FTE Required FTE Above (+) or Below (-)
School Teacher FTE Student Caseload Teacher Caseload per EC 56362(c) Education Code Standard
Lucas Valley
Elementary
School 1.00 17 17.00 0.61 +0.39
Mary E Silveira
Elementary
School 1.00 20 20.00 0.71 +0.29
Miller Creek
Middle School 3.00 55 18.33 1.96 +1.04
Vallecito
Elementary
School 1.00 19 19.00 0.68 +0.32
Total 6.00 111 18.50 3.96 +2.04
Sources: District-provided data and EC 56362(c).
Note: The district has a 0.4 FTE special education teacher responsible for administering academic achievement assessments for case manag-
ers who are not yet qualified to assess students. This position is not included in the analysis because it does not involve case management of
students.
Districtwide resource specialist staffing exceeds the requirements of EC 56362(c) by 2.04 FTE. However,
students receiving support from RSP teachers are not evenly distributed in groups of 28 across district
schools. While the industry standard practice is to assign a resource specialist to two schools when case-
loads are low, the current caseload numbers do not make this feasible. As a result, staffing levels above the
EC 56362(c) requirement appear necessary to adequately serve students across the district.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 17
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
Staffing Guidelines and Industry Standard Caseloads for
Special Day Class Programs
Special Day Class (SDC) programs provide specialized instruction and services to students with more
significant learning needs who require a structured environment for part of the school day. These classes
are designed to offer intensive support in a smaller, more controlled setting, often including additional adult
assistance to meet the individualized needs of students.
The Education Code does not define maximum caseloads for SDC programs. However, Article 8.7 of the
district’s agreement with the MCEA specifies a caseload guideline of 12 students per SDC teacher, with an
adult-to-student ratio of 1-to-6. If the caseload exceeds 12 students, the district and staff will agree on and
implement appropriate accommodations.
The district’s SDC caseload guideline is shown alongside the industry standard range in Table 4 below.
Table 4. District Special Education Teacher Staffing Guideline and Industry Standards for Spe-
cial Day Class Programs
Type of Class District Staffing Guideline Industry Standard Caseload Range
Mild/Moderate Support Needs Special Day
12 students per teacher 12-15 students per teacher
Class – Cross-Categorical
Sources: District’s agreement with the MCEA and the industry standard.
The district’s staffing guideline for SDCs serving students with mild-to-moderate support needs aligns with
the lower end of the industry standard range for caseloads.
Mild-to-Moderate Support Needs Special Day Class Programs
In the 2024-25 school year, the district has 2.0 FTE SDC teachers leading classes for school-age students
with mild-to-moderate support needs. Based on caseload estimates provided by the district, these teach-
ers manage the cases of 19 students, resulting in an average caseload of 9.5 students, as shown in Table 5
below.
Table 5. District Mild-to-Moderate Special Day Class Program Teacher Staffing, 2024-25
Total Average Industry Staffing Staffing
School Total Student Teacher Standard Needed to Meet Compared to
Level Teacher FTE Caseload Caseload Caseload Range Industry Standard Industry Standard
1.58 FTE to meet 1-to-12 0.42 FTE above
teacher-to-student ratio 1-to-12 teacher-to-
student ratio
Elementary 12-15
2.00 19 9.50
School students per teacher
1.26 FTE to meet 1-to-15 0.74 FTE above
teacher-to-student ratio 1-to-15 teacher-to-
student ratio
Sources: District provided data and the industry standard.
The districtwide caseload average for SDCs serving school-age students with mild-to-moderate support
needs is 9.5 students per teacher, which falls below the industry standard range of 12-15 students per
teacher. However, with only two SDCs in operation, the district cannot reduce SDC teacher staffing based
on current caseloads. The district needs to continue to review caseload projections annually and assess
student needs to determine whether adjustments to SDC staffing are necessary.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 18
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
Moderate and Extensive Support Needs Special Day Class
Programs
The district does not operate SDCs for students with moderate or extensive support needs, which is
uncommon for a school district of this size based on what is observed across the state. Nevertheless, the
district provides a full continuum of special education programs and services by using MCOE regional pro-
grams and nonpublic schools.
However, by not operating additional SDCs, the district may be limiting opportunities to place more students
in their least restrictive environment (LRE). Expanding SDC offerings could allow the district to serve a greater
number of students within district programs, promoting placements closer to their peers and community.
Special Education Annual Performance Report Measures
The IDEA sets nationwide minimum standards for providing education and related services to eligible stu-
dents with disabilities, including infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and students up to age 22 in grades TK-12.
It mandates that students with disabilities be educated in the LRE.
To determine the most appropriate educational setting, a student’s IEP team evaluates the student’s
strengths and needs and considers the educational benefits of different placement options. The CDE mon-
itors LRE placements through annual performance reports. These reports, required by the IDEA, assess
school districts on 14 indicators, with performance categorized as either “met” or “not met.”
According to the district’s 2022-23 annual performance report — the most recent available — the district
met two of the three targets for indicator 5. This indicator evaluates the district’s placement of school-age
students in the LRE, as shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6. District’s 2022-23 Performance on Indicator 5 — School-age Students in the Least Re-
strictive Environment
Indicator Rate Target Target Met?
5a. LRE Rate: In Regular Class More than 80% 68.88% ≥62.00% Yes
5b. LRE Rate: In Regular Class Less than 40% 12.86% <16.50% Yes
5c. LRE Rate: Separate Schools 4.98% <3.00% No
Source: Local Level Annual Performance Report 2022-23 (CDE).
The district did not meet indicator 5c, which measures the percentage of students served in separate
schools, including nonpublic schools, residential facilities, or home-hospital instruction. Most regional
programs are not classified as separate schools. However, the LRE for most students is typically a pro-
gram located at their home school or another school within their school district of residence, rather than a
regional program operated by another local educational agency.
District Students Attending MCOE Regional Programs
According to the most recent student count from December 2023, the district had 39 school-age and 4
preschool students enrolled in the MCOE SDC program. Miller Creek students are overrepresented in these
programs, making up 15% of all school-age and 16% of all preschool students in MCOE SDC programs, while
comprising only 6% of the SELPA’s total enrollment.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 19
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
Staff reported that the district has considered opening additional SDCs to serve some of the students cur-
rently attending MCOE programs. However, staff indicated that frequent turnover in the district’s director of
special education position in recent years has hindered efforts to expand special education programming.
Staff also noted that behavior support needs are likely the most common reason students are referred to
MCOE regional programs. As recommended in the “Special Education Department Positions” section of this
report, hiring a behavior intervention specialist could help the district better address these needs, and may
enable more students to remain in district-operated SDCs rather than attending MCOE programs.
Recommendations
The district should:
1. Annually review caseload projections and assess student needs to determine whether
staffing adjustments for RSP teachers are necessary.
2. Annually evaluate caseload projections and assess student needs to determine whether
staffing adjustments for SDC teachers are necessary.
3. Review district students with mild-to-moderate disabilities placed in MCOE regional
programs to determine if they could be better served in district-operated SDC classes. If
appropriate, recommend a change in service location at the student’s next IEP meeting.
4. Collaborate with the Marin County SELPA to explore whether there are enough similarly-
aged students with comparable support needs to establish and operate a district-run SDC
for students with moderate or extensive support needs.
Special Education Instructional Assistant Staffing
Special education instructional assistants, also referred to as special education aides or paraeducators,
are trained professionals who support students, typically under the direction of a classroom teacher.
School districts often employ special education instructional assistants under various titles with distinct job
descriptions, reflecting their diverse roles in providing specialized academic instruction, specialized medi-
cal support, behavioral support, 1-to-1 student support, and special circumstance instructional assistance.
The district employs special education instructional assistants under two distinct job descriptions.
• Instructional Assistant II – The job description states that this position works under the
supervision of special education and general education teachers, helping in implementing
instructional plans for individual students. Responsibilities include supporting students’
“physical, social, emotional and academic growth and well-being,” “performing routine
non-instructional duties,” and providing “specialized instruction and clerical” support.
• Instructional Assistant III – The job description states that this position involves working
with students who have “self-care needs, including toileting” and helping with the use of
“augmentative communication devices, wheelchair[s] and G Tube[sic] feeding.”
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 20
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
Instructional Assistant Staffing for the Resource Specialist
Programs
Education Code 56362(f) states, “At least 80 percent of the resource specialists within a local plan shall be
provided with an instructional aide.”
In the 2024-25 school year, the district exceeds this requirement by 0.95 FTE, employing 5.75 FTE instruc-
tional assistants to support 6.0 FTE RSP teachers. According to interviews and district documents, 1.0 FTE
for an instructional assistant equates to six hours of work per day.
Instructional Assistant Staffing for Special Day Class Program
The industry standard for SDC staffing is one instructional assistant per teacher for classes supporting
students with mild-to-moderate and extensive support needs. For SDCs serving students with autism, the
standard is two instructional assistants per teacher. Additional staffing beyond these base levels is typically
determined by an adult-to-student ratio, as shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Industry Standard Instructional Assistant Staffing and Adult-to-Student Ratios
SDC Industry Standard
Support Level SDC Focus Special-Education-Instructional-Assistant-to-Student Ratio Adult-to-Student Ratio
1-2 six-hour special education instructional assistants
Mild-to-Moderate Noncategorical 1-to-7
per 12-15 students
1-2 six-hour special education instructional assistants
Extensive Noncategorical 1-to-5
per 10-12 students
2-4 six-hour special education instructional assistants
All Autism 1-to-3
per 8-10 students
Source: Industry standards.
Note: Industry standard staffing for special education instructional assistants is based on class size to meet an adult-to-student ratio, which
includes both the classroom teacher and special education instructional assistant(s).
Article 8 of the district’s contract with the MCEA states, “SDC classes will maintain a student to adult ratio
[sic] of no more than 6:1 in order to allow for intensive small group instruction.” The district’s use of adult-to-
student ratios to determine instructional assistant staffing is a positive practice. The MCEA contract’s 1-to-6
adult-to-student ratio is slightly lower than the industry standard of 1-to-7 for SDCs supporting students with
mild-to-moderate support needs.
The district exceeds the industry standard for instructional assistant staffing, with 2.42 FTE instructional
assistants assigned to two SDC classrooms. This results in a student-to-adult ratio of 4.3-to-1, which is
below the 6-to-1 ratio specified in the MCEA contract. The lower ratio is primarily due to the grades 3-5
SDC class, which integrates students into general education classrooms for part of the day. Consequently,
the SDC classroom instructional assistant staffing seems appropriate to meet student needs.
1-to-1 Student Support
There is no established industry standard for special education instructional assistants providing 1-to-1 stu-
dent support, which is one of the most restrictive environments for students. Many school districts across
the state have moved away from the 1-to-1 designation because it can unintentionally reinforce the notion of
one adult being exclusively assigned to one student. The prevailing practice is to refer to both the assess-
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 21
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
ment process and the special education instructional assistant role as special circumstance instructional
assistance (SCIA).
The district has eight instructional assistants assigned to provide intensive individual (1-to-1) support — four
supporting students in SDC programs and four supporting students receiving RSP services. This level of
1-to-1 support is relatively high for a school district of this size, based on what is commonly observed across
the state.
Interviews indicate that the district uses the Marin County SELPA’s Summary of Special Circumstance
Assistance (SCA) Rubric to determine whether a student requires 1-to-1 support. This tool clarifies deci-
sion-making and emphasizes that 1-to-1 support is a significant programmatic decision. It also highlights the
importance of a thorough, data-driven evaluation and helps ensure 1-to-1 support is considered only after
exploring all less restrictive alternatives.
The district’s SCA assessment process aligns with industry standards by fostering individualized deci-
sion-making, maximizing existing supports, and ensuring data-driven assessments. However, interviews
indicate that the process is not consistently used when determining the need for 1-to-1 instructional assis-
tant support.
The SCA assessment process should prioritize planning for a student’s transition to greater independence
and facilitate the development of annual IEP goals that support this growth. However, staff reported that
independence goal(s) are not consistently included when 1-to-1 instructional assistant support is added to a
student’s IEP.
During annual IEP meetings, teams should evaluate students’ progress toward achieving independence
and develop plans to gradually reduce 1-to-1 instructional assistant support when appropriate. The dis-
trict should aim to assign one special education instructional assistant to support multiple students when
feasible.
Staff identified parental resistance as the primary barrier to reducing or discontinuing 1-to-1 support, even
when it may not be necessary or beneficial for the student. In some cases, parents may view 1-to-1 support
as essential for their child’s success, despite evidence suggesting that greater independence and integra-
tion into less restrictive environments could better serve the student’s long-term needs and educational
outcomes.10
Assigning more paraeducator support than necessary can be costly. Additionally, while requests from
parents/guardians or staff for 1-to-1 paraeducator support may be well-intentioned, research from the
University of Colorado at Denver’s Paraprofessional Resources and Research Center identified potential
negative impacts on student’s education, as paraphrased below:
1. Reduced Teacher Involvement: The paraeducator may inadvertently become the
student’s primary service provider, limiting the teacher’s involvement and interactions
with the student. This issue becomes more pronounced when paraeducators lack proper
qualifications or training, because students benefit most from teacher-led instruction.
2. Overdependence: The constant presence of a paraeducator can lead to the student
becoming overly reliant on adult assistance, reducing opportunities for the student to
develop independence.
3. Social Barriers: The presence of a paraeducator may create social barriers between the
student and their peers, limiting opportunities for social interaction and integration.
10National Council on Disability. (2018). The segregation of students with disabilities. Available at: https://www.ncd.gov/assets/uploads/docs/
ncd-segregation-swd-508.pdf.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 22
Findings and Recommendations
Further, staff reported that students are more frequently perceived as needing a 1-to-1 instructional assis-
tants when they require behavioral support. As discussed in the “Special Education Department Positions”
section of this report, hiring a behavior intervention specialist could help the district meet the behavioral
needs of more students and potentially reduce the need for 1-to-1 instructional assistants.
Recommendations
The district should:
1. Regularly evaluate instructional assistant staffing ratios to ensure they align with current
laws, industry standards, and adequately meet student needs.
2. Determine whether classroom instructional assistants supporting the RSP can be
reassigned to better align classes with EC 56362(c) while continuing to meet student needs.
3. Consistently use its SCIA assessment process to determine the need for 1-to-1 student
support.
4. Ensure that all IEPs including 1-to-1 instructional assistant support, except for medically
necessary support, contain goals for independence and a plan to gradually phase out
support.
Related Service Provider Staffing and Caseloads
Related services are developmental, corrective and supportive services necessary to help a child with a
disability to benefit from special education (Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations Section 300.34). These
services are documented in students’ IEPs and may include speech and language therapy, occupational
therapy and other essential supports.
FCMAT reviewed the district’s staffing ratios for speech and language pathologists (SLPs), school psychol-
ogists, and occupational therapists. Industry standards and Education Code requirements for these and
other related service providers are detailed in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Industry Standard Provider-to-Student Ratios
Industry Standard or Education Code
Provider Type Provider-to-Student Ratio
Psychologist 1-to-977
SLP (preschool) 1-to-40
SLP (ages 5-22) 1-to-55
Adapted Physical Education Teacher 1-to-45-55
Physical Therapist 1-to-45-55
Occupational Therapist 1-to-45-55
Vision, Orientation and Mobility 1-to-10-30
Deaf and Hard of Hearing 1-to-15-25
Nurse 1-to-2,274
Sources: Industry standards, EC 56363.3, and Pupil Services Staff by Type (CDE).
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 23
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
Occupational Therapy
The district’s contract with MCEA does not specify a staffing ratio for occupational therapists. In the 2024-
25 school year, the district has a 1.0 FTE occupational therapist position and contracts with a nonpublic
agency for an additional 0.2 FTE, resulting in a total of 1.2 FTE. Together, they provide services to 30 stu-
dents, with an average caseload of 25 students, as shown in Table 9 below.
Table 9. Occupational Therapist Staffing, 2024-25
Industry Standard
Number 2024-25 2024-25 Occupational Therapist- Staffing Compared to
Provider of FTE Caseload Average Caseload to-Student Ratio Industry Standard
0.53 FTE above
1-to-45 occupational
therapist-to-student ratio
Occupational Therapist 1.2 30 25 1-to-45-55
0.65 FTE above
1-to-55 occupational
therapist-to-student ratio
Source: District-provided data and the industry standard.
Note: Only students receiving direct services from an occupational therapist were included in the total caseload and related calculations.
The district exceeds the industry standard range by 0.53 FTE for a 1-to-45 occupational therapist-to-stu-
dent ratio and by 0.65 FTE for a 1-to-55 ratio. The district needs to annually review occupational thera-
pist caseload projections, the assessment load, the number of schools served, drive time between sites,
direct and consultation service minutes, and student needs to determine whether staffing adjustments are
necessary.
School Psychologists
The district’s contract with MCEA does not specify a maximum caseload for school psychologists. In the
2024-25 school year, the district has 3.4 FTE school psychologists serving school-aged students, with each
managing an average caseload of 516.47 students, as shown in Table 10 below.
Table 10. School Psychologist Staffing, 2024-25
Number 2024 Census Average Industry Standard FTE Above (+) or Below
Provider of FTE Day Enrollment Caseload Psychologist- to-Student Ratio (-) Industry Standard
TK-8 School
3.40 1,756 516.47 1-to-977 +1.6
Psychologist
Source: District-provided data and Pupil Services Staff by Type (CDE).
In addition to their regular responsibilities, the school psychologists reported providing some Educationally
Related Mental Health Services (ERMHS), which were not included in this analysis. ERMHS are mental
health services for students who qualify for special education and have social, emotional, or behavioral
needs that affect their ability to learn. The district also contracts for bilingual assessment support as
needed, which is similarly excluded from this analysis.
The district’s staffing for school-age program school psychologists is nearly double the industry standard.
As such, it would benefit the district to collect quarterly data on the following items to help determine the
necessary FTE for school psychologists and identify potential staffing reductions:
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 24
Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Staffing
• Referrals for assessments.
• Assessments completed.
• Students who qualify and do not qualify for services.
Tracking this data will enable the district to identify referral patterns by school, teacher or service provider,
supporting more informed decisions about staffing and resource allocation.
Staff also indicated that the school psychologists manage a high volume of initial psychoeducational
assessments, which places significant demands on their workload. While FCMAT did not receive specific
data on the number of these assessments, the volume is likely influenced by same factors contributing
to the increasing percentage of students identified for special education. As discussed in the “Factors
Influencing Special Education Identification” section of this report, these factors include the district’s SST
process and MTSS, and parent/guardian requests for special education assessments.
To reduce the volume of psychoeducational assessments and alleviate staff workload, the district needs to
continue providing teacher training on Tier 1 academic and behavior supports to better equip staff in sup-
porting students within the general education program. Strengthening these supports may also decrease
the number of requests for special education assessments.
Further, as discussed in the “Special Education Department Positions” section of this report, hiring a behav-
ior intervention specialist could help the district meet the behavioral needs of more students, potentially
decreasing the demand for initial special education and psychoeducational assessments, as well as the
number of school psychologist positions needed to support students.
Speech and Language Pathologists
The district’s contract with MCEA does not specify a maximum caseload for SLPs. EC 56363.3 establishes a
maximum caseload of 55 students for SLPs serving students ages 5 to 22, while EC 56441.7(a) establishes
a maximum caseload of 40 preschool-aged students.
The district is unique in that all speech assessments and services for preschool-aged students are deliv-
ered through SELPA regional services by MCOE employees. This approach deviates from best practices,
which recommend that school districts assess incoming students in need of speech services and provide
speech-only services on-site for those with less extensive needs. However, because preschool-aged stu-
dents require a lower SLP-to-student ratio, the district needs to evaluate whether offering these services
on-site at district schools would be cost-effective.
In the 2024-25 school year, the district has 3 FTE SLPs serving 153 students in grades TK-8, resulting in an
average caseload of 51 students receiving direct services, as shown in Table 11 below.
Table 11. Speech and Language Pathologist Staffing, 2024-25
Number 2024-25 2024-25 Industry Standard FTE Above (+) or
Provider of FTE Total Caseload Average Caseload SLP-to-Student Ratio Below (-) Industry Standard
School-age SLP 3.0 153 51 1-to-55 +0.22
Source: District-provided data and EC 56363.3.
Notes: Only students receiving direct services from an SLP were included in the total caseload and related calculations.
The district is staffed within the industry standard for SLPs.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 25
Findings and Recommendations
Recommendations
The district should:
1. Regularly analyze related service provider staffing ratios to ensure they align with current
laws, industry standards and adequately meet student needs.
2. Annually review occupational therapist caseload projections and student needs to
determine whether contracted occupational therapist staffing can be reduced.
3. Collect quarterly data as outlined above to identify patterns in referrals for initial
psychoeducational assessments by school psychologists, particularly for students who do
not qualify for services.
4. Determine how many preschool-aged students receive speech-only services through the
MCOE regional program and evaluate whether it would be cost-effective to provide these
services on-site at district schools.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 26
Appendix Special Education Teacher Staffing
Appendix
Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 27
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 28
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 29
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 30
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 31
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 32
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 33
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 34
Appendix Appendix A – Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Miller Creek School District 35