Santa Barbara School Districts Report

Santa Barbara School Districts Special Education Review June 12, 2009 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team June 12, 2009 Brian Sarvis, Superintendent Santa Barbara School Districts 720 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 Dear Superintendent Sarvis, In February 2009 the Santa Barbara School Districts and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement to provide a review of the districts’ special education programs and services. The agreement stated that FCMAT would perform the following: Scope A: Parent Participation and Communication 1. Guidance to the districts on the appropriate configuration of top administrative posi- tions in special education with recommendations for accountability, oversight and responsibilities in order to restore public confidence. 2. Recommendations that clearly define a communication system within the districts regarding special education litigation issues, defines the role of attorneys and outlines the components of an effective resolution process which eliminates the threat of retali- ation and reduces litigation and complaints. 3. An analysis of parent input regarding the opportunities for parent involvement, district outreach and parent communication that currently exist and make recommendations for improvement, if needed. 4. Guidance for the districts on strategies to ensure that low income families can be guar- anteed equal access to special education services. 5. Recommendations for effective communication and problem solving models for staff and parents to build solid trusting relationships with the special education department. Scope B: Organizational Review 1. Comparative analysis of the current organizational structure of the special education department with recommendation to ensure effective clerical, program and administra- tive support. 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: Larry E. Reider - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools 2. Development of an effective organizational chart outlining appropriate reporting structures for all administrative support positions and functions in the special education department. 3. Recommendation to ensure stable leadership in special education in the future. 4. Current measures of staff morale and make recommendations for improvement, if needed. Scope C: Fiscal Review 1. Recommendations that would increase revenue and/or curtail costs for the Santa Barbara School Districts. One of the options that will be carefully studied is the option of operating district regional programs. 2. A determination of the feasibility of the districts becoming their own SELPA, including the associated expenses or cost savings, liability and compliance issues. 3. An analysis of the cost effectiveness of the existing county operated vs. district oper- ated programs and recommendations regarding the best option costs effectiveness. 4. An evaluation of the current special education facilities consortia operated by the SELPA and recommendations to ensure that districts are not underwriting facilities costs, including the cost of special education preschool facilities of other districts in the SELPA. Scope D: Program Review 1. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the assignment process for teachers and aides with recommendations for improvement, if needed. 2. An examination of the districts’ philosophy, programs and procedures in special education to determine whether they are consistently aligned with the districts’ mission and core beliefs. 3. Feedback regarding the extent to which a Response to Intervention Model (RTI) is being implemented. 4. An analysis of staffing ratios class size in relation to other districts across the state and legal mandates. 5. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the special education programs and services 6. Evaluation of district procedures for determining the need for instructional aides, the provision of training for staff and the support for students when aides are absent with recommendations for improvement, if needed. The attached draft report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations with regard to the above areas of review. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you, and we extend our thanks to all the staff of the Santa Barbara School Districts. Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Foreword ...........................................................................iii Introduction ...................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ......................................................... 5 Findings and Recommendations ................................... 9 Surveys and Interviews ......................................................................................................................9 Parent Participation and Communication ............................................................................13 Organizational Review .....................................................................................................................21 Fiscal Review ..........................................................................................................................................31 Program Review ..................................................................................................................................37 Appendices ......................................................................53 FOREWORD iii 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.A B 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together on a local level t o improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards.T he legislation expanded the role of the county office in monitoring school districts under certain fiscal constraints to ensure these dis- tricts could meet their financial commitments on a multiyear basis.A B 2756 provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. These include comprehensive assessments in five major operational areas and periodic report s 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 th e state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. 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 Projected seidutS fo rebmuN Total Number of Studies....................743 Total Number of Districts in CA ..........982 Management Assistance.............................705 (94.886%) Fiscal Crisis/Emergency ................................38 (5.114%) Note: Some districts had multiple studies. Districts (7) that have received emergency loans from the state. (Rev. 1/22/09) Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction Background The Santa Barbara School Districts are the main public school districts that serve Santa Barbara, California. The two districts consist of an elementary district with an enroll- ment of 5,791 students and a high school district with an enrollment of 9,905 students. One administrative system and one school board govern both districts, with both the elementary and high school districts approaching basic aid status. The high school district receives funding based on serving students from Goleta, Santa Barbara, and Montecito, while the elementary district only receives funding based on serving students from the Santa Barbara area. In January 2009 the Santa Barbara School Districts requested that FCMAT review the districts’ special education programs and services. The study agreement specifies that FCMAT will perform the following: Scope A: Parent Participation and Communication 1. Guidance to the districts on the appropriate configuration of top administrative positions in special education with recommendations for accountability, oversight and responsibilities in order to restore public confidence. 2. Recommendations that clearly define a communication system within the districts regarding special education litigation issues, defines the role of attorneys and out- lines the components of an effective resolution process which eliminates the threat of retaliation and reduces litigation and complaints. 3. An analysis of parent input regarding the opportunities for parent involvement, district outreach and parent communication that currently exist and make recom- mendations for improvement, if needed. 4. Guidance for the districts on strategies to ensure that low income families can be guaranteed equal access to special education services. 5. Recommendations for effective communication and problem solving models for staff and parents to build solid trusting relationships with the special education department. Scope B: Organizational Review 1. Comparative analysis of the current organizational structure of the special educa- tion department with recommendations to ensure effective clerical, program and administrative support. Santa Barbara School Districts 2 INTRODUCTION 2. Development of an effective organizational chart outlining appropriate reporting structures for all administrative support positions and functions in the special education department. 3. Recommendations to ensure stable leadership in special education in the future. 4. Current measures of staff morale and make recommendations for improvement, if needed. Scope C: Fiscal Review 1. Recommendations that would increase revenue and/or curtail costs for the Santa Barbara School Districts. One of the options that will be carefully studied is the option of operating district regional programs. 2. A determination of the feasibility of the districts becoming their own SELPA, including the associated expenses or costs savings, liability and compliance issues. 3. An analysis of the cost effectiveness of the existing county operated vs. district operated programs and recommendations regarding the best option for cost effec- tiveness. 4. An evaluation of the current special education facilities consortia operated by the SELPA and recommendations to ensure that districts are not underwriting facilities costs, including the cost of special education preschool facilities of other districts in the SELPA. Scope D: Program Review 1. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the assignment process for teachers and aides with recommendations for improvement, if needed. 2. An examination of the districts’ philosophy, programs and procedures in special education to determine whether they are consistently aligned with the districts’ mission and core beliefs. 3. Feedback regarding the extent to which a Response to Intervention Model (RTI) is being implemented. 4. An analysis of staffing ratios, class and caseload sizes in relation to other districts across the state and legal mandates. 5. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the special education programs and services 6. Evaluation of district procedures for determining the need for instructional aides, the provision of training for staff and the support for students when aides are absent with recommendations for improvement, if needed. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team INTRODUCTION 3 Study Guidelines FCMAT visited the districts during the weeks of February 24, March 9 and March 16, 2009 to conduct interviews (group, individual and written), collect data and review documents. This report is the result of those activities and is divided into the following sections: • Executive Summary • Parent Participation and Communication • Organizational Review • Fiscal Review • Program Review • Appendices Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: William P. Gillaspie, Ed.D. Linda Grundhoffer Chief Management Analyst FCMAT Fiscal Consultant Fiscal Crisis and Management Danville, California Assistance Team Sacramento, California Amy Buster Baer* FCMAT Special Education Consultant James “Sarge” Kennedy San Rafael, California FCMAT Special Education Consultant Red Bluff, California JoAnn Murphy FCMAT Special Education Consultant Anne Stone Santee, California FCMAT Special Education Consultant Mission Viejo, California Laura Haywood Public Information Specialist Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Bakersfield, California *As a member of this study team, this consultant was not representing her employer but was working solely as an independent contractor for FCMAT. Santa Barbara School Districts 4 Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 Executive Summary FCMAT was requested by the Santa Barbara School Districts to study the districts’ special education programs in four major areas: parent participation and communication, organizational structure, fiscal and program delivery to determine their effectiveness and cost efficiency. During FCMAT’s time on site, the Superintendent, governing board and staff were professional and extremely motivated to improve the quality and effectiveness of the special education programs. Parents and community members participated freely throughout the process and provided necessary input and solutions into the process. Staff members were open to finding ways to improve the overall functions and service delivery to students with disabilities. The uniquely broad scope of this study gave FCMAT the opportunity to provide in-depth analysis of all critical aspects of the special education program operation as a unit and department in a system that grants a great deal of operational flexibility to its site princi- pals. There is a conflict of leadership roles and responsibilities between the special educa- tion program staff and the site principals. Both staff and parents expressed frustration over the confusion regarding who is in charge of special education program decisions and the inconsistent messages that occur as a result. Over the past eight years the districts have employed seven directors of special education. This instability in leadership is the root cause of the systemic problems that have led to inconsistency, disorganization, confusion over policies and procedures and a lack of direction to school sites. The districts do not clearly understand why the turnover rate in administration has been so high in this position. Parents expressed a high level of frustra- tion with the districts and a distrust of special education leadership. The staff expressed equal frustration and a lack of confidence, which was confirmed by a finding of low staff morale in the special education department. FCMAT has made recommendations to sup- port the board-approved organizational restructuring and systems changes in the special education department. Parents and staff expressed concerns over poor communication among parents, schools and the districts. The inconsistency and poor responsiveness to calls for assistance and information have seriously eroded the confidence and trust of parents, the community and the staff. In the absence of an informal process to resolve special education issues, the districts are experiencing an increase in formal complaints and requests for due process hearings. Requests for this level of intervention are costly for the districts and parents. Low-income families reported that they are underrepresented and disenfranchised with respect to the districts’ special education services. By district report, 60.5% of students in the elementary district and 35.3% of students in the high school district are low income as compared to 51.8% for Santa Barbara as a whole. FCMAT’s findings identified a clear disconnect between families and staff due to language and cultural barriers. As a result, parents believe their children do not have equal access to the special education and related services necessary for their children. Santa Barbara School Districts 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to the inherent systemic problems found in special education, the districts may need to consider the use of an ombudsman for a minimum of one year to support orderly change, mediate conflicts, track problem areas and provide a much-needed neutral third party to operate with absolute confidentiality. It will take time to restore confidence and open the lines of communication between parents and the districts. Parents report that in general, the individualized education plans (IEPs) for students are well developed. However, program services and supports outlined in the IEP are not delivered in a timely manner. Hiring delays for instructional aides have left many stu- dents without support services for two to six months. FCMAT analyzed the current organizational structure of the special education department and made initial recommendations to ensure effective clerical, program and administra- tive support. These were provided to the Governing Board on March 10, 2009. The board adopted the organization management restructuring for implementation for the 2009-10 school year, and is moving to fill the top leadership positions in special educa- tion. In addition, FCMAT has designed an organizational chart with appropriate reporting structures for all administrative support positions and functions in the special education department that included recommendations to ensure stable leadership in the future. In the fiscal component of this review, FCMAT studied the option of operating district regional programs as a way of curtailing costs and/or increasing revenue for the Santa Barbara School Districts. The most significant factor affecting the level of program costs associated with special education is the lack of systemic structure with adequate central- ized oversight. Improvement is needed in the districts’ hiring, replacement and position control system to avoid excess staffing and/or staffing patterns that do not reflect actual needs of the students. The special education department does not monitor the special education budget. School sites spend special education dollars without any meaningful fiscal oversight at a central- ized level. This practice largely accounts for the higher level of contribution from the unrestricted general fund budget required to support special education expenditures. The current funding model developed by the SELPA districts is consistent and appropri- ate. There is no persuasive programmatic or fiscal advantage for the Santa Barbara School Districts to become a SELPA nor would it be practical in the foreseeable future. FCMAT confirmed that the special education department has no oversight responsibility for the use of special education resources and no authority to establish the accountability to ensure the provision of special education and related services to students. There is no systemic method of assigning aides for each school year or to ensure that an aide that is assigned to one student (a 1:1 aide) follows the student to support the transition between grade levels. Once hired, aides often remain at the school site in other positions assigned by the principal. The recommendations for reorganization of the special education by position and reporting structure will provide direction to the districts to strengthen central control and fiscal oversight of the budget and resources of the department. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 The special education department is aligned with the districts’ mission and core beliefs but does not have a written mission, vision or philosophy for special education programs and services. The Santa Barbara School Districts support site-based management in each school, but it is not clear how special education fits within that structure. There is confu- sion and disorganization between site roles and district roles, which has a great impact on service delivery, parent confidence and staff morale. This management component must be a priority in the reorganization of the districts’ systems for special education. The districts do not offer a full continuum of special education programs and services at this time. Most students are assigned to their home schools, and each school is required to design programs and services to meet a wide variety of special education needs. Both staff and parents agree that some populations require more intensive programming, such as students with autism and emotional disturbance. FCMAT has made recommendations to address this issue at the district and SELPA levels. The special education department does not use a clearly defined staffing formula. The districts were unable to provide consistent data that reflected the total full-time equiva- lents (FTEs) funded by special education. FCMAT has made recommendations regarding staffing reductions and increases to balance the staffing structure of the department. The identification rate for students with disabilities is 12%, as compared to 10.4% in Santa Barbara County and 11% in the state. The philosophy behind Response to Intervention (RTI) models is that the effective use of RTI should decrease the need for special education services. Since the identification rate is higher in the Santa Barbara Districts than the county or state, the districts should evaluate the effectiveness of its RTI program. The effectiveness of special education programs can be measured by the degree to which programs and services are consistently delivered as outlined in the IEP. Delays in the hiring process combined with systemic administrative problems in the special education department have impeded the districts’ overall effectiveness in this area. This can create compliance problems for the districts if it is not addressed. The second measure is the degree to which staff is trained to support the unique needs of special education students. Both parents and staff report the need for more training at many levels, including site principals, parents, instructional aides and teachers. The new special education adminis- tration should develop a training sequence to support programs and staff. The use of 1:1 instructional aides in special education has increased in districts across the state. This can significantly affect limited resources for any district. Many districts have established written criteria and procedures for the use of 1:1 instructional aide support. This helps IEP teams to determine the needs of students and assists districts in managing resources. The SELPA has a procedural manual that describes the process for 1:1 aide acquisition in regionalized classes, but the Santa Barbara School Districts do not have such a procedure in place. There are a number of findings that indicate that the transfer and hiring process for instructional aides needs to be reviewed. Greater efficiency could Santa Barbara School Districts 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY be achieved, which would result in a more consistent and timely response to student needs for coverage and support. The results of the annual performance measures produced by the CDE indicate that despite the internal systemic issues in the department, students are making progress. On STAR testing in grades 3, 8, and 10, special education students met the proficiency target in math and continue to work toward proficiency in English/language arts. The targets for graduation rate from high school were met and the dropout rate decreased. This independent and external review has examined the entire special education program from parent participation/communication and program organization to fiscal and program effectiveness. The districts recognize the need for change and view this study as an opportunity to move the department forward. The dedication and commitment of the staff will define a new beginning for the department. The community and parents want the districts to be successful in the change process for special education, which will directly benefit the students and their families. It will take patience and time to rebuild public confidence and trust in the districts and for staff morale to improve. With the support of the Governing Board and the Superintendent, the districts will have the tools for systemic change in the findings and recommendations of this report that will form the basis of an effective action plan. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS 9 Findings and Recommendations Surveys and Interviews FCMAT interviewed parents, community members, special education, district office staff and site principals. These interviews were conducted in a variety of ways: group and individual interviews, written input submitted to the team, and informal written survey. In an attempt to maximize parent involvement in the process, FCMAT-developed surveys were mailed to all special education families in English and Spanish on February 12, 2009. To maintain confidentiality and assure parents that the districts were not interfering with the process, all parent and staff survey responses were mailed to the FCMAT office in Bakersfield. District staff were not involved in interpreting or reviewing the results. The Parent Survey (Appendix A) was not intended to be a statistical instrument. It was designed to evaluate district services and obtain key information from parents of children attending special education programs on their degree of understanding of the special education delivery process. The survey was conducted both in English and Spanish. The survey is based on the compliance review document developed by the California Department of Education (CDE) used in all California school districts. The table below summarizes the total number of surveys sent in English and Spanish and the total number received. The 382 responses received represent 19.2% of the surveys mailed. Summary of Special Education Parent Surveys mailed on 2/12/09 Survey Distribution Responses 1,976 Mailed to all eligible special education students to addresses on file with the Number of surveys mailed district; each envelope contained English and Spanish surveys Number of English surveys completed 266 Number of Spanish surveys completed 119 Number of surveys returned as 52 undeliverable 18 more completed after a second mailing In addition to the parent surveys, FCMAT completed extensive interviews with parents, district and special education staff, community members, etc. Participation in the interviews was voluntary. Private meetings were offered as an option by request over the three-week period from February 23 to March 17, 2009, and parents were offered a direct contact source for 1:1 meetings with FCMAT through the Bakersfield office. Santa Barbara School Districts 10 SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS Summary of Parent and Community Member Meetings held with FCMAT Private Meetings with Meetings with Community Focus Group: Parents Parents Members 4 parents of students attending 10 members of the community Tuesday, February 24, 2009 special education programs attended private 1:1 meetings 12:30 – 2:00 PM attended private 1:1 meetings with FCMAT during 2/24 – 4 parents in attendance with FCMAT during 2/24-3/16 3/16 sessions sessions Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:30 – 8:30 PM 10 parents in attendance 1 school board member Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:30 – 8:30 PM 14 parents in attendance Monday, March 16, 2009 6:30 – 8:30 PM 109 parents in attendance (28 headsets distributed for Spanish translation) Private Meetings with Parents in Focus Groups = 141 Private Parent Meetings = 4 Community Members = 10 Note: A Spanish translator was present at all public meetings held by FCMAT. Notices announcing parent meetings were sent by the districts’ Communications Department via announcement flyers sent home with students and phone call messages to each home. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS 11 The following table summarizes the focus groups held for district and special education staff and principals. Summary of District/Special Education Staff Input through Focus Groups Focus Group: Teachers/ Focus Group: 1:1 Meetings Aides District Staff Clerical Staff: Special Designated Instruction Superintendent Education (5) Specialists (9) Deputy Superintendent, Elementary Special Business Principals (10) Education Teachers (34) Budget Analyst: Special Education General Education Teachers Associate Superintendent, Psychologists (12) (5) Education Services Secondary Special Education Speech and Language School Board Members (5) Teachers (20) Specialists (12) SELPA Director Instructional Aides (15) Other Specialists (6) Fiscal Analyst, SELPA Director, Personnel Coordinators, Personnel (2) Director, Research, Evaluation &Technology Director, Student Services and Compliance Interim Special Education Directors (2) Coordinator of Special Education Interim Co-Directors of Special Education (2) Program Specialists (3) CSEA President Teachers Association President Nurses (2) Psychologist (1) Teachers (2) Total: 79 Total: 49 Total: 31 Santa Barbara School Districts 12 Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION 13 Parent Participation and Communication Parent Involvement Implicit in national educational Goals 1 and 8 (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, public Law 103-227) is the concept that family and school are partners in prevention of school failure for children. Family-school relationships have been identified as a primary domain of protective factors for children, particularly those living in high-risk circumstances (Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998). Children who are identified with special needs require a high level of participation and communication between home and school. Parent partici- pation and communication in the Santa Barbara School Districts is lacking, resulting in due process actions, noncompliant IEPs, inappropriate instructional programs provided to students, and a high level of frustration among many parents. Survey results reveal that most parents felt they were receiving consistent communication (64%), that the school was responsive to them (73.9%), that they knew who to contact to get special education issues resolved (77.5%) and that they had a solid, trusting relation- ship with the special education department (71.8%). In contrast, parents who attended the sessions scheduled for this study reported that calls or e-mails are not returned in a timely manner, or not responded to at all. There is also a lack of understanding among these par- ents about who to call to get problems resolved. They reported a lack of clarity about who is in charge of managing the special education program for the Santa Barbara districts. An example of the communication problems in the districts arose at the parent input meetings scheduled for this study. District administration reported that all special educa- tion parents were invited to attend feedback groups and that information about the meet- ings would be on the districts’ Web site. At the meeting some parents reported that their child brought home an invitation to the meeting, while others had not received the invita- tion. Most of the parents attending the meetings reported that they found out about the meeting in an e-mail from another parent. No information about the meetings was posted on the Web site. Information about later parent meetings was posted by district staff. According to parents who attended the meetings, it is extremely difficult to get a timely response to phone calls or e-mails from the department and school sites. Parents expressed a high degree of distrust with the districts due to a lack of open communication and dialogue. There is a lack of consistent direction from the special education depart- ment in that parents reported that the same question could get very different answers depending on which district employee was asked. Family members who differ in terms of culture, values or language are more hesitant to interact freely and openly with school personnel. Many parents view the school as an institution that is unwelcoming, distant and inflexible. They reported a lack of communication between 1:1 instructional aides and parents. Through interviews with staff, FCMAT was made aware of instances when aides were told not to speak to parents and were not permitted access to the student’s IEP. There is a lack of coordination between the schools and other agencies such as Mental Health and Regional Center. Santa Barbara School Districts 14 PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION Recommendations The districts should: 1. Develop repeated contacts and interactions with parents to improve trust and com- munication skills. 2. Consider the following actions to promote trust and improve communication: a. Accept parents as they are b. Share information and resources c. Follow through on promised actions d. Discuss objectives openly e. Prepare for meetings with parents 3. Explore available options for updating parents regarding special education issues through e-mail, telephone contact, parent meetings, etc. 4. Provide training for principals on disability awareness and cultural diversity to ensure that families of students with disabilities feel welcome on the campus. Annually monitor success in this area through parent input sessions, surveys or other appropriate methods. 5. Ensure that parents receive timely and consistent responses from the districts on all special education matters. 6. Establish special education department procedures on effective communication strategies for 1:1 aides and parents. 7. Define the roles and responsibilities of instructional aides and communicate with parents so there is a clear understanding of expectations. 8. Meet at least annually with both mental health and local regional center staff to open dialogue, address school, agency and parent concerns and evaluate the effec- tiveness of the transition process between schools and agencies. 9. Strive to convey at least three consistent themes to families: a. The desire to develop a working partnership with families b. The crucial nature of family input regarding children’s educational progress c. The importance of working together to identify mutually advantageous solutions to problems 10. Develop effective two-way communication. Parents and teacher can then be informed of what is expected relative to student behavior, achievement and discipline. This will result in shared goals and mutual decision making; avoiding misunderstandings and helping parents understand how to reinforce learning and school instruction in the home. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION 15 11. Encourage parents to visit school sites regularly and talk with the principals and teacher regarding their child’s educational setting. 12. Ensure that principals take a leadership role in ensuring all children are treated equally and fairly on their school campus, as they are required to do by federal and state statute. 13. Develop a clear, welcoming parent involvement policy, and publish and post it in an obvious location in each school site in the districts. 14. Display welcome signs in various languages. 15. Ensure that the school office is friendly and open. 16. Organize the school so that each special education child is known well by six people. 17. Provide a parent contact person responsible for connecting parents and educators at each school site. 18. Post a school map to help visitors find their way around the school buildings. 19. Arrange children’s work and photographs in the main hallways. Be sure to include special education and general education students together. 20. Consider setting aside a room for parents to meet informally or formally to discuss concerns or issues. Have a district staff member available to answer ques- tions or give support. Effective Resolution of Complaints and Litigation In prior years the SELPA was responsible for due process, including potential litigation. The SELPA office hired the attorney and attended any mediation or due process hearing. Although the districts were responsible for implementing the mediation or due process decision, they were not responsible for attorney fees. This is no longer the case, and the districts now work with two legal firms for special education issues. Many parents complained that the SELPA is not supportive of the districts. FCMAT found that there is distrust of the SELPA and a lack of understanding of the role of the Santa Barbara County Office of Education and the Santa Barbara SELPA. The SELPA still has a legal pool for districts to access in due process cases that is based on the district’s average daily attendance (ADA). For Santa Barbara, the amount available is considerably smaller than in past years. During the 2008-09 school year the districts have had four due process cases filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Two cases are resolved, two remain open and there are 12 potential cases. This represents an increase in due process requests over previous years. In addition, there is a rise in the number of formal complaints during the 2008-09 school year. Parents report that the majority of these complaints are related to the failure to Santa Barbara School Districts 16 PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION provide timely services. The rise in due process and formal complaints likely indicates increasing parent frustration and lack of confidence in the district. It also highlights the lack of an informal process to resolve special education issues. Formal Complaints Complaints 2006-2/23/09 Year Number Outcome 2006-07 3 2 in compliance, 1 closed 2007-08 No records provided 6 corrective actions or mediated agreements 2008-09 7 1 resolved through informal mediation The special education department reported that this year attorneys representing the dis- tricts have been requested to attend more IEP meetings than in prior years. In some cases, school site staff reports that the presence of the attorney has enabled the IEP to progress more efficiently and effectively. It was reported that in other cases, the presence of the attorney has led to a more acrimonious IEP meeting. Attorneys should be used for IEP meetings only after all other reasonable measures have been exhausted. Parents have reported to FCMAT that IEP meetings can be contentious, with parents not being considered part of the team. Staff that are responsible for conducting and facilitating IEPs, including special education district office staff, site principals, assistant principals, and site certificated staff have not had any training in conducting effective and collaborative IEP meetings. The districts arranged for principals to receive training on collaborative IEPs in May 2009. The process, including timelines, for filing a complaint or a due process is available to parents through the CDE’s Special Education Web pages, and is in the information given to parents in their Parents’ Rights. Although parents receive a copy of the Parents’ Rights at the IEP meetings, they are not on the districts’ Web site or contained in a user-friendly brochure. The due process/complaint procedure is unclear to staff and principals. School sites recognize that complaints and due process actions are handled by the districts’ spe- cial education department, with little or no involvement of the school site. The school site staff does not always understand why decisions were made at the district level regarding the final outcome of a complaint or due process hearing. At this time, the districts do not use any form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve issues in special education informally. The districts are in the process of hiring a resource parent to facilitate open communication for parents in the special education process. The position of resource parent is often one facet of ADR and is very helpful to parents trying to navigate through the complexities of special education. ADR involves training staff, community members and parents to resolve disputes between the district and a parent that would otherwise be resolved through due process. ADR does not take the place of due process, nor does it prevent either a parent or a Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION 17 district from filing a due process action. The intent of ADR is to resolve the dispute infor- mally while maintaining a working and non-adversarial relationship between the parties. Advocates and attorneys are not allowed in ADR sessions. Although the specifics of an ADR process vary from one district to another based on the unique characteristics of each entity, the Santa Barbara SELPA Director can assist the districts in contacting other districts and SELPAs that have an ADR process. Additional information, including forms, is included in Appendix B to this report. Because of the systemic problems found in special education at the district and school site levels, the districts may need to consider utilizing the support of an ombudsman in special education for a minimum of one year. Many private organizations and govern- ment agencies use an ombudsman to provide mediation for conflicts, track problem areas and make recommendations for changes to policies or procedures. The ombudsman role differs significantly from the resource parent role. It should be structured to function independently of the special education department and school sites, reporting directly to the superintendent and school board without serving any other role in the organization. The ombudsman must remain neutral and visibly outside ordinary line and staffing structures in the organization. The ombudsman operates informally but with absolute confidentiality. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Develop a Frequently Asked Questions and Answers section on the special educa- tion Web page to assist parents with common questions. 2. Consider hiring an ombudsman for special education for at least one year to build trust and confidence in the system between parents and the district. 3. Establish a special education department e-mail address and phone line so that parent questions or concerns can be addressed. This can be monitored by the resource parent. 4. Develop a regular schedule for special education district office staff to meet that includes time to review questions from sites and parents. 5. Develop a written process to determine when a student on an IEP requires addi- tional services. Decisions should always be based on appropriate formal and/or informal assessments. 6. Develop with the SELPA a streamlined process for referrals to regionalized pro- grams. Train all appropriate staff on the process and develop a method to keep site staff and parents informed of the status of the student’s referral. 7. Conduct legal staff meetings prior to an IEP when additional resources may be discussed so that decisions can be made as required at the IEP meeting. This Santa Barbara School Districts 18 PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION would reduce the number of IEPs that either the districts’ attorney or the special education district office staff needs to attend, reduce delays in resolving issues and empower IEP teams. 8. Develop a process so that the special education management staff is available to attend IEP team meetings to assist in resolving complex issues when needed. 9. Provide a district attorney for an IEP team meeting only after all other avenues have been deemed ineffective. The districts’ attorney would be involved in due process hearings and unusual CDE complaints 10. Train staff that regularly attends IEP meetings, including special education teach- ers, DIS staff, and site administrators, in methodology for effective IEP team meetings, such as the upcoming training on collaborative IEPs. 11. Train IEP administrators and administrator designees in legal requirements of special education so they can effectively chair IEP team meetings. 12. Develop a process so that site staff understand their role in due process and are involved in decision-making at the resolution meeting and mediation levels. 13. Provide support for the new resource parent that will enable them to direct parent questions to the most appropriate staff, provide general information to parents regarding the IEP process, and follow up with parents regarding their inquiry. 14. Research the feasibility of instituting an ADR process and implement an ADR program as deemed appropriate by the districts. District Outreach Interviews and survey results reveal that there is no coordinated district outreach to parents of students with disabilities. The districts had previously sponsored a parent group called Special Education Parent Advisory Committee (SEPAC) but the group was disbanded because of reduced parent participation. According to staff and parents, the SEPAC had become dominated by a small group that made other parents feel it was not an effective forum for communication and problem solving. A new parent group recently formed the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC). This group was not organized or sponsored by the district, and the parent organizers are responsible for running the group. This has led to confusion about the role of the group, membership, effectiveness and how other parents can participate. However, the SEAC group is very committed to working with school personnel and the school board in improving services to special education students. They should be recognized as an impor- tant group to foster communication and services to children. Most parents who responded to the survey (68%) were not aware of opportunities to participate in support groups or parent trainings. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION 19 Opportunities for parent training are further limited by the Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) in the Santa Barbara area. PTIs are prescribed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Under IDEA, PTIs are required to provide parents of children with dis- abilities (including low-income parents and parents of children with limited English proficiency) with training and information on disabilities, rights, parent support groups and other resources. The PTI for Santa Barbara County is Team of Advocates for Special Kids (TASK). TASK is based in Anaheim and serves counties from San Diego to San Luis Obispo. Unfortunately, TASK does not have an office or currently provide any training in Santa Barbara or Ventura counties. TASK does have an office in San Luis Obispo and had only one training scheduled at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. The districts’ Web site is not constructed with meaningful communication and outreach in mind. The site does not convey a feeling of community, particularly with the Spanish- speaking population. An initial site window should offer the option of using English or Spanish. Instead, the window opens to a cluttered Web site in English, with the choice for “Español” in a very small red font at the bottom left. When the special education pages are viewed in English, extensive information is provided. In Spanish, however, a PDF file of the parental rights statement is the only information provided. Open, two-way communication is essential to an effective home-school partnership. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Establish a district-sponsored advisory group coordinated by the Executive Director of Special Education using guidelines approved by the Governing Board. 2. Require the advisory group to provide a monthly report and an annual executive summary to the board. Allow the advisory committee to speak periodically at board meetings to review and discuss concerns parents have regarding appropriate delivery of services. 3. Ensure that the advisory board has a balanced representation of the range of dis- abilities, age/grades of students, and ethnicities. 4. Ensure that the advisory committee covers a wide range of topics including: cur- riculum development, fiscal planning, parent concerns, due process, legal rights of parents, the role of the site principal in special education, the role of the parent in the IEP process and general parent training. The advisory committee should do a follow-up parent survey and needs assessment to determine parent training needs. Santa Barbara School Districts 20 PARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION 5. Require the Executive Director of Special Education to provide information on special education to the public information officer to ensure it is available to all parents. 6. Require the special education department to coordinate trainings for parents who do not speak English with the District English Language Advisory Committee (DELAC). 7. Contact the PTI to schedule local trainings. 8. Invite parents to visit their child’s classroom. 9. Host social events and multicultural celebrations. Have parents who represent the culture come to the classroom and share its importance with students. 10. Document and ask parents about their needs and provide timely responses, both verbally and in writing. 11. Revise the special education section of the districts’ Web site to ensure it achieves meaningful communication and outreach to Spanish-speaking families. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW 21 Organizational Review Organizational Structure The special education department administration is directly responsible for additional duties related to general education. In addition to the overall supervision of special education pro- grams and services, the department is responsible for health services, Section 504 and home hospital services. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids all entities including both public and private schools that receive federal funding to discriminate on the basis of disability. Where schools are concerned those operations involve the education of children with disabilities and employment of a work force. The assignment of health services to spe- cial education is not uncommon in other districts, particularly because of the linkage with specialized health care services provided to students with disabilities. Within the past year, the districts also assigned the supervision of Section 504 to special edu- cation along with the supervision of home hospital services, which is primarily a function of general education. Both programs were previously supervised by Education Services. A comparison of similar school districts indicates that Section 504 is supervised by special education in five out of the 10 districts (Appendix C), and that only Santa Barbara School Districts are assigned home hospital. The districts should reconsider the assignment of additional supervisory responsibilities to the special education department until leadership changes have been made. Santa Barbara has fewer special education supervisors than most comparable districts. The average number of special education supervisors (directors, coordinators, program specialists, other supervisors) in comparable districts is 4.7. This does not include additional program specialist or supervisory support provided through the SELPA. Santa Barbara has 3.5 supervisors in special education. It should also be noted that the 2.5 pro- gram specialists are used primarily as case managers and do not provide the same type of service as typical program specialists. District Staff Special Ed Enrollment General Ed Enrollment Santa Barbara 3.5 1873 15,696 Burbank 8.0 1698 16,586 Lake Elsinore 3.0 2366 21,764 Lompoc 2.5 845 10,329 Napa Valley 7.0 2084 17,771 San Marcos 4.8 2181 17,851 Santa Clara 6.0 1760 14,719 Tustin 5.0 2063 21,682 Upland 1.0 1176 14,354 Ventura 6.0 1917 17,374 Average = 4.7 Santa Barbara School Districts 22 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW The administrative resources in the special education department should be redesigned to provide greater efficiency in direction and support to the school sites and parents. Special education must take a leadership role and overall responsibility for program design and compliance with standards, including instructional programs designed to maximize stu- dent performance. The structure designed below outlines the primary role of the Executive Director (see Appendix D-1), two directors who focus on elementary and secondary programs and services (see Appendix D-2) and three program specialists who work directly with school site staff providing staff development, curriculum support, etc. (see (Appendix D-3). Communication must be a high priority, with clear guidelines on response time and appropriate methods of delivery to rebuild confidence and trust in the department. Santa Barbara School Districts Special Education Reorganization Chart Associate Superintendent Educational Services Special Education Executive Director Administrative Assistant Parent Advisory Special Education Confidential Committee Resource Parent Director Director Elementary District Secondary District Program Specialist Program Specialist Program Specialist Elementary District Secondary District Secondary District Recommendations: The districts should: 1. Assign overall management responsibility for the operations of special education and health services to an Executive Director who reports directly to the Associate Superintendent for Education Services. 2. Assign management of the day-to-day special education operations to a position (elementary or secondary) that reports directly to the Executive Director. 3. Realign the job responsibilities of the program specialists to provide instructional leadership to programs and services for students with disabilities at school sites and ensure effective departmental communication. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW 23 4. Create a systematic supervision plan for special education. During the implemen- tation phase, have the Executive Director report directly to the Superintendent. 5. Schedule regular reports to the board by the Superintendent on the progress of the reorganization and action plan for special education. 6. Begin recruiting for new special education leadership positions in the early spring to secure the best candidates for these positions. 7. Establish operating guidelines that require all calls and e-mails to be returned within 24 hours. If an answer is not immediately available, make contact to let the person know when they will receive a response. 8. Move the supervision of Section 504 back to the Director of Student Services for at least two years. 9. Move the supervision of home hospital back to Educational Services. Administrative Structure and Operation In reviewing the top administrative positions in the special education department, FCMAT focused on ways to ensure consistent accountability and oversight to restore public confidence. The special education department organizational structure is not efficient or effective. There has been a lack of leadership stability in the special education program because of high turnover in the director’s position. Over the past eight years the districts employed seven directors of special education. The last two directors did not provide the necessary leadership and guidance needed in the special education department. This has led to inconsistency, disorganization, confusion with policies/procedures and a lack of direction for school sites. Parents expressed a high level of frustration with the districts. The staff expressed equal frustration and a lack of confidence in the management and direction of the special education programs. FCMAT contacted seven of the previous directors to gain an understanding of the reasons for the high turnover rate in this position. Five former directors were interviewed, and two did not respond. Several common themes emerged. For some, the reasons were related to personal life choices due in large part to the high cost of living in Santa Barbara and the desire to explore options outside of special education leadership. However, there were four major reasons of a professional nature: 1. The special education department was understaffed, leaving the directors unable to perform the duties of the position with the desired level of professionalism. 2. The position did not have the authority to make final decisions. When unpopular decisions were made, they could be overturned at a higher administrative level. As a result, the directors did not feel supported by the administration. Santa Barbara School Districts 24 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW 3. The implementation of decisions for special education was often delayed because of a layered decision-making process in the districts’ administrative structure. 4. The time required to respond to complaints and due process filings significantly impeded the overall effectiveness of the department. Statements received from parents and other individuals in the community show a very strong undercurrent of mistrust in the districts’ leadership, particularly with regard to spe- cial education programs. Further, communication and common understanding is lacking on the part of school site leadership and the families served regarding realistic expecta- tions for special education. Many parents are frustrated and do not trust the school site leadership that oversees their children’s programs. Examples of that mistrust include: • Principals not including special education students in the culture of the school • Principals’ lack of understanding of special education laws and procedures, particularly around the IEP process and implementation • Lack of general education and special education articulation • Unequal access to general education curriculum and supplies at some sites • General education teachers and principals not being inclusive of special education children • No information on student progress given to parents of students with disabilities • Parents of students with disabilities feel disconnected from the school site and are intimidated about sharing their concerns There is a conflict of leadership roles and responsibilities between the special educa- tion program staff and site principals. The staff reports confusion over who is charge of special education, with mixed messages coming from both principals and the district staff in special education. The districts do not have a clear vision for the provision of special education programs and services and no distinct definition of roles and responsibilities of the sites vs. the districts regarding special education. There is no special education procedural manual, which enhances the confusion for staff. Training and support opportunities for teachers and aides are limited. Throughout FCMAT’s interviews with staff there was a prevailing theme of frustration over a lack of training. The concern centered around the lack of opportunities to access training for both teachers and aides as well as the lack of quality training to provide appropriate services for students. With each new special education administration, the special education staff feels like they are starting over with new priorities and procedures. The program specialists function as case managers rather than in the traditional role of guidance and support for special education services. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW 25 Parents reported problems with the IEP process and service delivery issues that directly relate to the inconsistency in leadership and lack of procedural guidance, as follows: • Lack of training for certificated and classified personnel that work with specific behavior disorders • Inadequate transition process from K-6 to 7-12 in curriculum, services and supports • Delays in services listed in the IEP; parents reported delays of two to six months before aides are hired and provided • Lack of training for staff on behavior disorders and autism • Consistent delays in IEP timelines • Lack of training on the IEP process for parents and staff • No evidence of inclusion training for general education • No communication regarding 504 plans The districts must clearly define operational guidelines for a centralized program such as special education in a decentralized system of site-based management. Both staff and parents need to know who is in charge. The roles and responsibilities of the principals and special education administrative staff must be defined. The department must have a clearly defined vision and deliver a consistent message across the districts and community regard- ing special education programs and services. This vision must be developed in collaboration with all stakeholders and is discussed in greater detail in the program review section. The clerical support staff is not organized to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. They work hard to try and respond to questions and concerns from staff and community without the expertise to do so. In the absence of consistent leadership, the staff works diligently but with little direction. To establish stable leadership, the districts must reorganize the department by position and reporting structure. Special education administration must have the authority to appropriately supervise and make decisions regarding the work of the department. When the reorganization is complete, the department must be held accountable for developing a consistent message and response regarding special education matters. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Adopt a board-approved special education vision statement and policy with a commitment that all children receive a free appropriate public education. This policy development should involve parents, staff and community. 2. Ensure that all items listed as concerns by parents in the report are addressed by the school board, with an action plan submitted by staff showing who is respon- sible for implementation, the timeline and the costs involved. Santa Barbara School Districts 26 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW 3. Formulate a staff development plan based on a needs assessment, with input from parents, teachers, principals, instructional assistants, and general education staff. Implement the plan for the 2009-10 school year. 4. Provide opportunities for general and special education teachers to meet regularly regarding special education processes and develop effective communication strat- egies to assist children with exceptional needs. 5. Establish monthly job-alike meetings for special education staff. 6. Take immediate action to improve the hiring practices for special education staff. Specifically, explore options for increasing efficiency in the hiring process for instructional aides to decrease the lapse in time from hire to start date. 7. Develop interim strategies to fill open unfilled instructional aide positions with trained staff until a permanent employee is hired. Consider creating a pool of floater aides that are fully trained to fill positions on an interim basis. 8. Update the districts’ Web site to include current information about special educa- tion, with highlights in Spanish. 9. Establish the parameters of authority for special education leadership, which should be supported and communicated by the Superintendent to all departments and school site administrators. 10. Streamline the decision-making process for special education in the districts to include the necessary interdepartmental communication between personnel, finance, school site principals and staff. 11. Define the roles and responsibilities of principals and district special education administration. Develop a plan to effectively communicate those roles and respon- sibilities to the school site staff and parents. 12. Develop a system for disseminating a consistent message regarding special educa- tion policy and procedures. Accomplish this through a published and regularly updated procedural handbook, agenda items at job-alike meetings, agenda items at principal meetings, or staff training for major changes. Set a target goal for year one of the action plan that builds in accountability standards for special education to maintain a consistent message regarding policy and procedures. 13. Establish operating guidelines that provide direction and support to administrative staff and are communicated to all staff, including principals. 14. Develop a comprehensive Web page for special education that provides parents and community members with a user-friendly resource. 15. Provide training and support to all site principals regarding special education procedures and the IEP process. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW 27 Staff Morale FCMAT gathered input on special education staff morale in a variety of ways. More than 50 teachers were interviewed in groups and individual settings. Some teachers chose to submit written statements regarding their concerns and feelings about staff morale. In addition, FCMAT mailed an informal survey to 329 teachers and instructional aides in the district, with 149 staff members responding. A copy of the Staff Morale Survey can be found in Appendix E. The results showed that 80% of the staff rated staff morale in the special education department as low. The staff feels valued by the community (70.6%) and the students they serve (90.5%), but only 25% feel valued by the districts. FCMAT found that the low morale in the districts is caused by several factors: 1. Lack of clear communication of expectations, largely attributable to the turnover in administrative staff. Consistent direction is not provided on policy and proce- dures. 2. Lack of administrative support from the district office. Communication is poor and indecisive at the district level. The decision-making process is not clear. 3. Frequent changes in special education leadership. Procedures change frequently and are inconsistent. 4. Teachers do not have the resources and methodologies they need to support the needs of students. 5. The increased workload due to changing requirements with the IEP process and paperwork has limited time for planning and collaboration. 6. Lack of staff development for both teachers and instructional aides. 7. The special education staff is uncomfortable addressing concerns for fear they will be involuntarily transferred or experience another form of retaliation at the site or district level. Several recurring themes were expressed that the staff believes can positively affect special education staff morale: 1. The support of other colleagues in both general and special education 2. Mutual respect for special educators among district colleagues and administrators 3. Student achievement 4. Parent support for special education in the community 5. Adequate facilities, equipment and supplies 6. Training and ongoing support Santa Barbara School Districts 28 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Recommendations The districts should: 1. Set the improvement of special education staff morale as a priority for the new special education administration and the districts. 2. Cultivate strong collegial supports for special educators, with particular attention to the relationships with general education teachers. Accomplish this at the site on staff development days and at the district level at least two times per year. 3. Hold job-alike meetings at least four times per year so special educators can con- nect with department colleagues to share ideas, celebrate successes, and problem- solve complicated cases. 4. Consider an annual special education staff recognition event sponsored by the newly formed Special Education Parent Advisory Committee to honor teachers and instructional aides who provide exemplary service to students. 5. Complete a district review of the facilities, equipment and supplies available to the special education staff and make recommendations for improvement. 6. Explore options through the county office of education or SELPA to provide train- ing and support to special education teachers. 7. Provide teachers with a forum to exchange ideas and suggestions with the new special education leadership. 8. Develop strategies to ensure that the environment in special education is open and transparent to minimize the fear of retaliation that currently exists. 9. Evaluate special education staff morale annually. Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Formation FCMAT was asked to determine the feasibility of the districts forming their own SELPA, including the associated expenses or cost savings, liability and compliance issues. FCMAT compared the Santa Barbara County SELPA model to two other like-sized SELPAs and found the basis for distribution of funds to be very similar. Because the districts are declining in enrollment, it would not be fiscally prudent to move from the SELPA at this time. A statewide trend shows that as the districts’ general education enrollment continues to decline, the number of special education pupils may not. The cur- rent funding model used by the SELPA districts appears to be fair and appropriate. The districts should continue to participate in the SELPA based on current factors. In the future, when efficiencies and proper processes and procedures have been developed for the special education programs of the districts and are fully functional, the districts may want to reconsider forming a SELPA. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW 29 Recommendations The districts should: 1. Continue to participate in the Santa Barbara County SELPA. Reconsider becoming a single-district SELPA when stable leadership and efficient, effective processes and procedures are in place in special education, and when enrollment is stable and increasing. Regional Program Operation FCMAT was asked to consider whether or not the Santa Barbara School Districts should operate more regional programs for the SELPA. These regional programs are currently operated by the Santa Barbara County Office of Education, and most of the students enrolled in these programs are residents of the districts. The regional programs serve students with disabilities that create educational needs requiring the most labor intensive services. Consequently, the direct program costs associated with serving these students are quite high. However, the Santa Barbara COE’s direct program cost per student with severe disabilities ($56,489) is almost twice as high as Santa Barbara Schools’ costs ($28,956). Without access to the fiscal information, FCMAT could not determine what factors drive the COE’s costs so much higher. Two observable and contributing factors are the labor- intensive nature of the students served in the COE programs and the method utilized by each agency to code expenditures, particularly administrative and supervisorial expendi- tures. The state’s COEs tend to serve the most severely impaired student population. They often require a number of specialized services involving more experienced professionals and support staff than students who are more often served in classes operated by school districts. This pattern is also found in Santa Barbara, with one glaring exception: students who externalize their emotional disturbance through disruptive behavior are apparently excluded from the COE programs for students with emotional disturbance. If they, too, were in classes operated by the COE, the direct program cost per student would even be higher. In turn, the direct program cost per student for Santa Barbara Schools would prob- ably be lower. It does not appear, then, that the population, by itself, is the driving force behind the much higher direct program cost per student rate. The other significant factor is adminis- tration and supervision. Districts tend to rely on their site administrative staff for supervi- sion of special education programs and staff. COEs, on the other hand, do not outsource this resource to sites, and the geographic region in which their programs are provided is far greater than is found in a school district. Consequently, the administration and super- vision costs always tend to be higher for the COE than for a district. Usually this can be compared by reviewing Goal 5001 (Unspecified) with Function 2100 (Instructional Santa Barbara School Districts 30 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Supervision). Unfortunately, this information was not fully available from the COE during FCMAT’s analysis. The information that was available showed that the COE did not code any expenditures in Goal 5001. All the usual unspecified goal expenditures were charged to specified goals 5060 (Program Specialist), 5710 (Infants and Toddlers), 5730 (Preschool), 5750 (Students with Severe Disabilities, and 5770 (Students with Non-severe Disabilities). There is nothing wrong with this practice, but it makes comparison between entities a little more difficult and requires more in-depth fiscal information than was available to FCMAT. Questions remain regarding the basis for distributing the administrative and supervisory costs over the specifying goals rather than including them all in the unspecified goal, and regarding the staff-to-supervisor ratios existing in the COE program structure. These factors will greatly influence the true cost of regional programs. (A per-student comparison of the Santa Barbara Schools, the Santa Barbara COE, and the Santa Barbara SELPA as a whole can be found in Appendix F to this report.) Based on this further analysis, FCMAT believes that a case could be made for the districts to consider operating more regional programs. However, the districts have a great deal of challenges to address and that may weigh against any fiscal advantage stemming from the assumption of these programs at this time. The SELPA has employed a retired SELPA director to review the operation of the regional programs with the idea of improving their cost-effectiveness. His report is expected in the near future, and it would probably be best to consider the issue after his report is received and studied. Since a program transfer is governed by EC Section 56207, which requires considerable time and planning, such a transfer could probably not occur before the 2010-11 school year. This will permit adequate time to analyze the factors involved and conduct the necessary planning if the decision is made to transfer programs. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Wait until the report to the SELPA from the consultant is received and reviewed before further considering assuming the operation of additional regional programs. 2. If a decision is made to take such an action, develop and implement a plan, pursuant to EC Section 56207, to effect the transfer with minimal disruption to services. Ensure that parents are well aware of the action and are urged to participate in the planning. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team FISCAL REVIEW 31 Fiscal Review Position Control The most significant factor affecting the level of program costs associated with special education in the Santa Barbara Schools is the lack of a systemic structure with adequate centralized oversight in a site-based operation. This results in program operations having insufficient program supervision and inadequate controls on the fiscal consequences. While there are potential strengths in site-based management of instructional programs, there is also the potential for significant inconsistencies in the provision of services and the manner in which fiscal planning and oversight is implemented. These inconsistencies are greatly exacerbated when the oversight of special education programming is weak- ened or absent. Problems in the relationships and communication between the special education department and the business and personnel departments have resulted in a considerable loss of cost-efficiency in providing special education services. The districts do not have appropriate processes or controls in the position control system when hiring, replacing and/or validating special education staff. The Authorization for Employment form and process used by the districts is not always followed and does not result in effective position control. In fact, principals often call the human resources department to request filling a vacancy or opening a new position without completing paperwork or obtaining the approval of the special education department. A related con- cern is that it can take several weeks for vacant positions to be posted and filled, as there are no formal processes regarding how and when that is supposed to happen. The districts should review the signature requirements on all HR/payroll forms and streamline the process where possible. For example, the Superintendent’s signature could be required only for approval of new positions and changes to existing positions rather than for all personnel request forms. A reliable position control system establishes positions by site or department and prevents overstaffing by ensuring that staffing levels conform to district formulas and standards. The position control functions should be separated so that proper internal controls exist, with a distribution of labor between the business and human resources departments. Effective checks and balances need to exist between personnel decisions and budgeted appropriations. Processes and controls must be implemented to ensure that only board-authorized posi- tions are entered into the system and budgets, that human resources hires employees only for these authorized positions, and that payroll pays only employees hired into the authorized positions. The proper separation of duties is a key factor in creating strong internal controls to ensure a reliable position control system. After budget development, the position control system and the budget must continue to be updated with the same information; payroll must also be compared against this information. Santa Barbara School Districts 32 FISCAL REVIEW Sample Distribution of Labor for Internal Control Task Responsibility Approve or authorize position Governing board Business department Input approved position into position control, with estimated salary/ (include sp. ed. dept. in budget approving position) Enter demographic data into the main demographic screen, including Human resources the following: department Employee name Employee address Social Security number Credential Classification Salary schedule placement Annual review of employee assignments Update employee benefits Business department or Review and update employee work calendars human resources Annually review and update salary schedules department Account codes Business department Budget development in conjunction with the Budget projections special education dept. Multiyear projections Salary projections The Position Requisition form below is useful in the following instances: • Creating a new position – this requires documentation showing where the funding is coming from and why the position is needed. • Funding changes – requires documentation for the new funding source. • Posting a vacancy – requires the name of the employee being replaced. • Increasing/decreasing FTE – requires documentation either way. Decreases could result in layoffs. • Eliminating a position – complete the justification area. This section could result in layoffs. • Request for long-term help/substitutes – (a) If a classroom teacher will be out on long-term leave (more than one semester), approval may be requested for a long- term substitute/temporary teacher. Documentation is required. (b) If substitutes are being requested for in-service training or other site activities that are not related to a teacher’s absence, this form must be completed and a site budget code provided for charging the expenses. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team FISCAL REVIEW 33 XXXXXX SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION REQUISITION General Information ____________________________ ______________ ______________ __________ Site/Department Name Site/Dept # Telephone # Request Date _______________________________ ___________________ _________________ ___________ Requestor’s Name Title E-Mail Address Alternate Phone Action Requested: ALL REQUESTS MUST BE APPROVED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ____ Create New Position Current Allocation: _______ New Allocation: _______ Funding Change ______ (attach documentation) (attach documentation) ____ Post Vacant*/New Position (please circle) *To replace: _____________________________________ ____ Increase FTE % from ____ to _____ _____ Decrease FTE % from ______ to ______ ____ Eliminate Position: justification ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Long-term Substitute*/Extra Help Request Instructions: Show budget sources below _____ Certificated Start Date _____________ End Date: __________ and attach documentation justifying request Job Classification: ________________________ _____ Classified Work Hrs ________am/pm to ________am/pm Employee on Leave* _______________________________ Recommended Sub: _____________________________ Budget Codes Existing Funds ____ New Funds ____ (attach supporting documentation) Fund Resource Program Account Code Object ____ _______ _______ _________________________________ __________ _______% ____ _______ _______ _________________________________ __________ _______% ____ _______ _______ _________________________________ __________ _______% ____ _______ _______ _________________________________ __________ _______% ____ _______ _______ _________________________________ __________ _______% ____ _______ _______ _________________________________ __________ _______% Position Information Position Number _____________ Position Title ___________________________ Current FTE % __________ ___________________________________ ________ ____________________________________ ________ Requestor (Principal, Program Mgr,etc) Date Executive Director Date ___________________________________ ________ ____________________________________ ________ Associate/Assistant Superintendent Date Verified by (Human Resources) Date ___________________________________ ________ Human Resources to return copy to originator Chief Financial Officer Date Santa Barbara School Districts 34 FISCAL REVIEW Recommendations The districts should: 1. Use a personnel request form that is routed for appropriate approval signatures prior to hiring taking plan (see sample above). 2. Review signature requirements on all HR/Payroll forms and streamline the process where possible. 3. Use a position control system that guards against hiring FTE outside of budget constraints. 4. Establish open lines of communication between personnel, special education and the business office. Task the Business Office with providing data and reports to the Superintendent and Cabinet. 5. Develop a process that includes the special education Executive Director’s signed agreement to replace or add an aide before personnel begins the hiring process. Use established procedures outlined on the Authorization for Employment Recruitment/Replacement form. Include a section for special education approval. Budget Monitoring The special education department does not monitor the special education budget. Budget monitoring is essential to the fiscal health of a district. Budgets should show the most current spending plan at all times. Therefore, the special education office needs to be proficient in understanding how to monitor and update the budget. A process for monthly review of special education budgets, both revenues and expenditures, should be developed and followed. This would include completing budget transfers and budget increase/decrease forms as needed. The review should include the balancing of position control to payroll at each interim reporting period (actual as of 10/31 and 1/31 of each year). The budget must reflect the true budgetary status of the program. Expenditures should not be allowed to be spent unless there are adequate funds available in the specific budget to which the expenditures will be charged. In addition, the budget codes used must be in compliance with the California State Accounting Manual. (See Appendix G to this report.) A FCMAT review of payroll account codes versus special education staffing lists (i.e., employees’ actual positions) revealed that several employees were not coded to the appropriate object and/or program. If revenues and expenditures are not correctly classified, the actual cost of the special education program cannot be fully determined. Special education budgets are being spent without appropriate controls at the centralized level. As a districtwide program, the expenditure budgets should be developed and monitored by the special education office, with assistance and input from the site administrators. Centralized control would ensure effective and efficient use of all special education resources and could help to reduce the current encroachment level. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team FISCAL REVIEW 35 Recommendations The districts should: 1. Collaboratively develop special education budgets for the 2009-10 school year among the business office, special education department and site administrators. 2. Utilize procedures developed by the Superintendent and superintendent’s cabinet to ensure that these funds are used to meet districtwide goals. 3. Ensure proficiency with the new special education administration in monitoring and updating the special education budget. 4. Establish an ongoing process for monthly review of the special education budgets to complete budget transfers, balance position control, and determine the budget- ary status of the program. 5. Ensure that monthly communication occurs with the Superintendent and cabinet regarding the budgetary status of the program. 6. Ensure that the new special education administration receives training on Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) codes. Facilities Costs FCMAT reviewed the facilities agreement allocations and found that the current meth- odology agreed to by the SELPA districts for facilities cost apportionment appears to be appropriate. Under the current methodology, districts are required to supply a number of classroom stations for regionalized programs based on CBEDS counts of public schools in the county. This is compared to the number of classroom stations actually provided by the district. If a district has more classroom stations available for use than is required, they pay a smaller share of the total housing costs. If a district does not have as many classroom stations available as required, it will pay a larger share of the housing costs. As of the 2008-09 fiscal year, the Santa Barbara schools were providing 9.9 classroom stations of the 14.78 stations required by the formula. The Santa Barbara schools have 330 students being served in regionalized programs, or approximately 21% of all its special education students. If the districts were to provide these programs rather than participating in this consortium, they would need to provide additional classrooms, whether that means using available, empty classrooms (if any) or adding classroom space on campuses across the district. Based on the districts’ current overall enrollment and utilization of classroom space, the districts should remain in the consortium. In the future, when efficiencies and proper processes and procedures have been developed for the special education programs of the Santa Barbara schools and prove to be working effectively, the districts may want to consider a different method of providing these services to their students. Santa Barbara School Districts 36 FISCAL REVIEW Recommendations The districts should: 1. Remain in the facilities consortium until such time as the efficiencies, proper procedures and process have been developed and implemented with the special education department of the Santa Barbara School Districts. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 37 Program Review Equal Access Issues District-provided data indicates that 60.5% of students in the elementary district and 35.3% of students in the high school district are low income (as measured by district free and reduced lunch data) as compared to 51.8% for Santa Barbara County as a whole. Low-income and Spanish-speaking parents of disabled students are significantly dissatis- fied with the special education services their children receive. Low-income families feel underrepresented and disenfranchised. Specific training has not been provided to staff working with low-income families. Through parent interviews, FCMAT found that parents feel that the districts do not understand the behaviors/inten- tions of students due to language and culture barriers. As a result, parents believe that their children do not have equal access to special education and related services. This makes parents feel disrespected and that their child’s education is not of importance to the districts. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Assess the training needs of staff with regard to working with low-income families. 2. Provide interpreters and child care at meetings to encourage participation. 3. Provide training to teachers on strategies for working with low-income families. 4. Connect with community organizations that serve low-income families to arrange geographically convenient meeting places and/or transportation to parent meetings. 5. Provide education to staff and families that encourages understanding and cel- ebration of diverse family forms, culture, and ethnicities. 6. Strive to convey at least three consistent themes to families: • the desire to develop working partnerships with families • the crucial nature of family input into their child’s educational progress • the importance of working together to identify mutually advantageous solutions to problems 7. Develop effective two-way communication. Parents and teachers can then be informed of what is expected relative to student behavior, achievement, and disci- pline. This will result in shared goals and mutual decision-making, thus avoiding misunderstandings and helping parents understand how to reinforce learning and school instruction in the home. 8. Seek assistance from Hispanic advocates to facilitate communication. Santa Barbara School Districts 38 PROGRAM REVIEW Mission and Core Beliefs The districts’ Mission Statement is as follows: The Santa Barbara School Districts, in partnership with parents and the community, will provide professional instruction and guidance so that students will: Achieve academic excellence. Understand and respect diversity, Balance individual interests and civic responsibilities, Participate in an increasingly technological society, Take responsibility for their own learning and development. Special education does not have a written mission or philosophy statement for the depart- ment. The lack of a clear special education philosophy leaves the districts without a foun- dation for the efficient operation of a centralized program in a decentralized system. The Santa Barbara School Districts support site based management in each of their schools, but it is not clear how special education fits within that structure. Special education is a large district program, serving 1,819 students with disabilities, with a staff of 329 special education employees. This has led to confusion as to who is in charge of the special edu- cation teachers, aides, curriculum and materials. The roles and responsibilities of the site principals and the special education administra- tion are not defined. No written guidelines or procedures define the operational aspects of special education. Site administrators evaluate the special education staff, including the support staff. Both support staff and some principals strongly felt that the evaluation of the support staff should be the responsibility of the special education department rather than the principals. Special education must define its role and mission in a manner that aligns with the district philosophy. As part of the philosophy for the department, it will be necessary to include how programs and services will be developed, supervised and supported. The philosophy must define who is in charge of special education. Roles and responsibilities must be clear. A full range of programs and services must be available to students. Without this effort, the department will lack direction and services for students will suffer. A group of stakeholders generally develops mission statements. In this case, the mission statement and philosophy for programs should be developed by a small group of parents, special and general education teachers, site administrators and the districts’ special education administrators. The process to develop a mission and philosophy can be time consuming and laborious. This can be particularly challenging if the parties have had dif- ficulties in the past that have eroded trust, as is the situation in Santa Barbara. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 39 Recommendations The districts should: 1. Form a committee consisting of representatives from each of the following groups to develop a mission statement for the department and clarify the philosophy of serving special needs students: • Parents • Special education district office administrators • Special education service providers • General education teachers • Site administrators 2. Contract with someone who is skilled in developing mission/philosophy state- ments and facilitating groups to provide structure and transparency to the process, which will assist in improving trust between the stakeholders. 3. Present the mission and philosophy statements to the school board for approval. 4. Include the mission statement and philosophy on the districts’ Web site and in a special education procedure manual so that all teachers, parents, and community members are aware of the focus for special education. 5. Determine who is in charge of the special education teachers, aides, curriculum, materials, and evaluations based on the philosophy of the department, and ensure that these decisions are clearly communicated to all site administrators, special educators and district office staff. Response to Intervention (RTI) Model The districts’ Board Policy 6164.5 addresses student study teams. It establishes the need for a student study team (SST) at each school to identify those students having academic, attendance, or behavioral difficulties, and the strategies and programs that may resolve or alleviate these difficulties. This policy was adopted in 1999, prior to recent legislation regarding response to intervention (RTI). The districts’ Administrative Regulation 6164.5 provides general information to each school site on how to establish an SST process. The exact process for a SST differs from one school site to another. A lack of consistency in the SST process results in a student being referred for assessment for special education at one school site, and not referred at another school site. The districts do not collect any SST data, and there are no definitive guidelines regarding successful SSTs. The SST process is not intended to be the hurdle that must be cleared to refer a student for special education assessment, but is a forum to assist students at the school site so they can succeed without special education. Santa Barbara School Districts 40 PROGRAM REVIEW RTI is a general education function, not a special education function. Currently, RTI does not look the same at each elementary, middle or high school. At some sites it is a “push- in” program. While others have the special education staff working with nonidentified special education students, some have a leveled system of providing reading and/or math instruction with special education staff working with a group of students in the same way that the general education teachers do. Others have a defined pyramid of additional services available to students based on specific assessment, with no special education involvement until the student is referred for assessment. It was reported to FCMAT by district administration that each site principal has had training in RTI. A few sites have had additional training by Elk Grove Unified School District or University of California, Santa Barbara. Principals do not have specific directions on how RTI should be imple- mented or the role of special education in the process. The districts have no consistent model for RTI, with each school providing its own version or model. Training has been provided in Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) to many of the secondary general education teachers. At some of these sites the special education teachers were included in the training. The special education teachers that have been trained are expected, by their site administrator, to use the AVID strategies in the Intensive Instruction (II) classes. However, not all sites are incorporating AVID strategies, not all special education teachers were trained, and materials are only available to special education teachers when their principal makes them available. The special education department has not been involved, and in some cases is not even aware of the training that special education teachers have received at their school site. The districts’ psychologists do not use RTI as part of the decision-making process for special education. The state has not developed criteria or policies for using RTI to deter- mine eligibility for special education. Therefore, the psychologists continue to use the traditional discrepancy model to determine eligibility even at the sites that are implement- ing RTI. The identification rate for students with disabilities in the 2008-09 school year is higher in the Santa Barbara School Districts than it is in Santa Barbara County and the state. The philosophy behind RTI programs means that effective use of RTI should decrease the percentage of students identified for special education. That has not happened in the Santa Barbara School Districts, despite the implementation of RTI. The districts need to examine the process for identifying students with disabilities. Identification rate for students with disabilities from CASEMIS 2008 District County State 12% 10.4% 11% Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 41 Recommendations The districts should: 1. Establish a districtwide student study team process at each school to reduce the likelihood that a student is treated differently at one school site than another. 2. Train all sites on the SST process. 3. Include in the districtwide SST process a consistent method of documenting: • The levels of RTI operating at the school • The specific data collected through RTI • The criteria for referring for a special education assessment 4. Collect data from all sites to determine the effectiveness of the SST process. Data would include: • The number of students discussed at SSTs • The number of students assessed for special education • The number of students who were assessed and found eligible for special education 5. Include special education teachers in all RTI, strategy instruction and academic training provided to general education teachers as appropriate for their grade level and subject matter. 6. Ensure that all special education teachers have the appropriate materials to imple- ment the trainings. 7. Train all psychologists on how to use RTI as part of the decision-making process for referral to special education, not as a substitute for the discrepancy model but to further demonstrate the eligibility for special education. 8. Evaluate the effectiveness of current Response to Intervention strategies that impact the identification rate for special education. Staffing Ratios, Class and Caseload Comparison The special education department was unable to provide an accurate staffing list that reflected the total FTE funded by special education, the class sizes and caseload numbers. On further review, FCMAT found that staffing lists are available through personnel and finance, but neither can verify the numbers used in special education. The review of staff- ing ratios is based on the information gathered by special education during this study. The accuracy of that data can impact the overall findings. The districts’ philosophy of site-based management drives a decentralized approach to staffing in the special education department. All special education teachers and aides are Santa Barbara School Districts 42 PROGRAM REVIEW hired, supervised and evaluated by the school principal. The special education department has no oversight responsibility for maintaining staffing ratios. It also has no authority to establish the accountability to ensure that program and caseload size is balanced to ensure the provision of special education and related services to students. The districts do not offer a full continuum of special education programs and services. All students are assigned to their home school, and each school is required to design programs and services to meet a wide variety of needs. The model is reportedly based on a learning center model, but through interviews with staff and parents FCMAT found that for the most part, students are fully included with aides. These aides are not always fully trained to support students with disabilities in such an integrated manner. In a letter to the field dated March 27, 2009, Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, provides guidance to districts regarding the basic legal requirements for service delivery for students with disabilities (see Appendix H). The letter outlines the need for districts considering changes in service delivery to ensure that the statutory requirements of state and federal law are followed. Other requirements include that teachers must meet IEP goals and are appropriately credentialed and meet highly quali- fied standards, and that personnel costs can be shared in a pro-rated manner based on instructional time. SELPAs are reminded of the obligation to ensure that a continuum of program options is available to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Santa Barbara School Districts do not have a full continuum of program options in at least two disability areas, nor are those options available in the SELPA. The programs for emotionally disturbed (ED) and autism populations require more intensive services than are available at the school sites. Parents and staff stated that there is a high need for ED programs that focus on students with externalizing behaviors and specialized programs for students with autism requiring intensive services. Parents also value continued placement of students with disabilities at the home school. However, intensive programming such as programs for students with autism and emotional disturbance are costly and require staff with specialized training. It is not feasible to create this range of service in every school. To successfully meet this challenge, the districts and parents will need to work together to develop successful programs and services. The SELPA shares a responsibility to ensure that a full range of programs and services are available, and should also be involved in the discussion regarding service options. Nursing The statewide average for nurses in California is one nurse to 2219 students (1:2219). The districts’ ratio is 1:3924. Like most districts, Santa Barbara uses a consultation model for health services, with trained health technicians supervised by credentialed school nurses. The averages above relate only to the ratio of credentialed school nurses to students. In addition to general education duties, the nurses perform assessment, specialized health care, training and support to students with disabilities. Increasing the nursing FTE by three positions would reduce the ratio to students to 1:2242, which is more in line with statewide staffing. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 43 Staffing Ratios In the absence of a clearly defined staffing formula, FCMAT analyzed staffing ratios based on the program function codes to which the special education staff is coded. Although the districts use a learning center model, teachers are coded as either RSP or SDC. The average RSP caseload is 22.8 students. The Education Code prescribes a cap of 28 students per resource specialist. The Santa Barbara teacher contract specifies a maximum of 28 students per special education teacher. The districts are well within the range and legal requirements for RSP. The average SDC caseload is 20.8. The teacher contract specifies a maximum of 28 students. School Services of California (SSC) guidelines are 12 students in SDC at the elementary level and 12-15 students at the secondary level. The districts clearly exceed this guideline because of the learning center model. The districts should continue to evaluate the effectiveness of this model and ensure that the needs of all special education students are met. The needs of students must drive the model rather than the model driv- ing the programs and services. FCMAT incorporated all ED and all transition programs into the calculations for severely handicapped programs. The average caseload in SDC SH is 11. The SSC guidelines aver- age 8-10 for most low-incidence areas and 10-12 for developmentally delayed. Adapted physical education (average 52) and visually impaired (average 21.3) are well within the SSC guidelines. The deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) average caseload is 6.7. The SSC guideline is 10-30; however, district staff indicated that the services are spread out over a wide geographical area. Based on this need a lower caseload is justified but should be closely monitored. The ratio of psychologist to students in the districts is 923:1. This includes the responsi- bility for providing counseling to special education students. The ratio of psychologists to students based on the CBEDS count in 2007-08 is 1:1328. The districts had conflicting data on the actual number of psychologists employed for the 2008-09 school year. It ranges from 15.0 to 17.0 positions. If the districts align the psychologist ratio with the guidelines in the CBEDS count, they could eliminate three to five positions, yielding a savings to the districts of $255,444 - $425,740. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Standardize the staffing plan for special education that reflects the total FTE funded by special education revenues, the class sizes and caseload numbers regardless of the kind of program delivery model implemented on the sites. Santa Barbara School Districts 44 PROGRAM REVIEW 2. Develop a staffing list that reflects the total FTE for all certificated and classified staff that is aligned with the totals in the personnel department and the function codes for special education available in the business office, and accurately reflects the specific site assignments for all special education staff. 3. Develop a plan to monitor the class size, caseload and numbers of instructional aides assigned to provide services. 4. Create and implement staffing formulas for all program options and services that align with the standards of practice, legal and contractual agreements. 5. Increase the staffing level for nurses from 3.0 to 7.0 to align more closely with the statewide ratio of 1:2219. 6. Develop a strategic plan for special education that clearly outlines the range of services available for students, particularly specialized programming for students with emotional disturbance and autism. 7. Reduce the psychologist FTE by 3.0-5.0 for a savings of $255,444 - $425,740. 8. Give individual school sites the option to purchase additional psychologist ser- vices from school site funds. 9. Work collaboratively with the SELPA to ensure that a full range of programs and services are available to meet the needs of students in the Santa Barbara districts. 10. Use a strategic planning process with all stakeholders, including parents, to develop a full range of specialized services for the emotionally disturbed and autistic populations. Assignment Process for Teachers and Aides The special education department does not have a written or formalized process for the assignment of teachers and aides. There is no established staffing formula or process with which to build an appropriate staffing plan for all services and programs. This is due largely to the instability in department leadership. In the past, the school site had the primary role in assignments, while recently the Director of Special Education made unilateral assignment of both special education teachers and aides. When candidates for aide positions are initially interviewed for a position with the dis- trict, they are asked a series of general questions. Questions are not specific to 1:1 aides. When aides are initially assigned to a site, they start work with only the information that the special education teacher at the site provides them about their situation. In cases where aides are required to help with more involved needs such as the toileting or trans- ferring of a student, training usually consists of another aide at the site walking the new aide through the process. Aides are quickly left on their own. Although the human resources department clearly states both orally and in writing that aides are hired by the Santa Barbara School Districts and not by the individual school, the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 45 individual school sites clearly operate under the philosophy that the aides belong to them and can be assigned at their school site as they see fit. Aides are not informed about training opportunities and when they request to go to train- ing, their site administrator often refuses the request. Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) training has been provided to aides at some sites but not at other sites that have equally aggressive students. AVID training was provided to aides at one site but not at others. The special education department does not have a handbook for aides. Aides get their information from other aides, from teachers, or from outside sources. This leads to frus- tration and inconsistent information for staff. The districts have no process for determining the ongoing need for instructional aides annually. As students move out of the districts or are released from special education, the districts do not reassign the aides to meet new needs in the special education program. Aides remain at the school site in other positions assigned by the principal. Parents are highly frustrated regarding the districts’ inability to staff instructional aide positions in a timely way and in conformance with the IEP. This has a negative impact on the special education department and the districts’ credibility with parents. At the same time, staff perceive a lack of support from special education. The staffing assignments for teachers and aides do not always match the credentials, skills and training of staff. The districts must define who is directly responsible for assigning special education staff: the school site principal or the special education department. Once that clarification is provided, a clearly defined assignment process must be implemented that is consistent and responsive to student needs. Aides are not required to sign letters of intent to return the following year. Some aides believe that if they indicate that they will not be returning in the fall, they will lose their benefits. This was reported as not being accurate. Many aides who know they are not returning to their position do not resign until the fall or simply do not show up in the fall. When aides do not let the districts know of their intent not to return to employment and do not report at the beginning of the school year, aide positions may not be filled when the students arrive for the first day of school. In the past, recruiting for open positions was done in the summer. This past summer, due to a proposal to reduce the number of aides, recruitment did not take place. This caused even greater hardship than in the past, with some aide positions not filled until November. Parents and teachers were equally frustrated by the unfilled aide positions, and this further eroded their trust in the district. There is no aide pool for substitutes, or for potential open positions. Therefore, when an aide is out for an extended period, or the position is critical, the position is often filled by a substitute teacher paid at the higher substitute teacher’s rate. The site-based management program delivery model, which keeps nearly all students at their home school, requires more aides to be hired than if the districts used the traditional aide/teacher formula. There is no formula for aide assignments with this model, and so sites request aides as needed. Santa Barbara School Districts 46 PROGRAM REVIEW Recommendations The districts should: 1. Assign primary oversight responsibility for the staffing and assignment of special education teachers and aides to the special education department leadership. 2. Provide transparency with staffing formulas to ensure that stakeholders have: • a common understanding of the rationale for staffing decisions • the opportunity for site principals to provide input on programming needs 3. Align staffing assignments with appropriate credentials and skills, and provide the opportunity for training and support for specific skill areas. 4. Develop a system of checks and balances through oversight of the resources through a special education staff utilization plan that is reviewed by both the prin- cipal and the Director of Special Education. 5. Review the needs of students as they transition from elementary to secondary to make sure that the instructional aide supports follow the student. 6. Recapture resources annually as students move, exit the program, or as needs change. Utilize those resources to meet the ongoing needs of other students with disabilities. 7. Send an annual notice of assignment to aides and teachers to establish a commu- nication link among the department, principals and special education staff. 8. Monitor assignments to ensure that staff are appropriately certified and trained for the specific assignment for each school year. 9. Develop interdepartmental procedures between personnel, business and special education to ensure that instructional aides are assigned to students in a timely way and in conformance with the IEP. 10. Define the meaning of “support” for special education staff and principals. Establish accountability standards to measure the effectiveness of that support from both the department and the school sites each year. 11. Streamline the hiring process to facilitate ongoing hiring of special education aides. 12. Provide substitutes when aides are absent in key areas, such as 1:1 aides or self- contained SDC moderate/severe classes, or when an aide is out for an extended time. 13. Hire a specific number of permanent floater aides that are trained and available to assist with difficult situations and during the hiring process for a new 1:1 aide. This will ensure immediate coverage for the student which will significantly relieve frustration of both staff and parents. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 47 14. Eliminate the aide position at a school site when a student with a 1:1 aide leaves the districts or no longer needs the aide. 15. Develop a transfer policy that enables aides to be aware of open positions at their current school site. 16. Review aide duties in collaboration with the special education department, the department chairs, and the site principals to ensure that aides are working with special education students. Occasional use of a special education aide in other capacities is understandable, but not on a regular basis and not if it takes away from the needs of the special education services provided on that site. 17. Maintain minimum levels of staffing to appropriately meet the students’ needs, while remaining in compliance with any contract or statutory requirements. 18. Develop an aide handbook that would include best practices for aides including: • How to handle behavioral issues and health issues • Suggestions on modifications/accommodations • Information regarding IEPs, goals, and behavior plans • Disability awareness • Suggestions on how to work in collaboration with the general education classroom as well as in the special education classroom • Confidentiality and expectations regarding aide/parent interactions. • Specific information regarding the position for a substitute or a new hire 19. Design a training module for newly hired instructional aides that provides direc- tion and preparation in the management of student behavior and an orientation to specific disabilities that is completed prior to their official start date. 20. Design a sequence of staff development activities for all instructional aides. Provide adequate release time for instructional aides to access this training. Determining the Need for 1:1 Aides The number of 1:1 aides has increased in districts throughout the state, with many parents accessing the Internet, advocates or attorneys to assist them in acquiring 1:1 aides for their child. The SELPA procedural manual has written criteria for requesting additional aide support in a regionalized class, but does not address policies or procedures for a district to assign, support, reduce or end the services of a 1:1 or other aide. The lack of district policies and procedures increases the potential for adversarial IEP meetings and increases the likeli- hood that only parents with advocates or attorneys can convince an IEP team of the need for additional assistants. It also furthers the perception that students who are considered lower income do not get the same services as other more affluent students. Decisions are Santa Barbara School Districts 48 PROGRAM REVIEW made without data and at times without appropriate interventions implemented before the request. It is also more likely that sites will arbitrarily authorize and maintain additional assistants when those assistants are not needed. Interviews with special education site staff, special education district office staff and human resources staff reported that when a special education student receives a 1:1 instructional assistant, or when a class/program requires additional instructional aide sup- port, that aide support continues throughout the student’s years in the district. The specific aide may not follow the student, however, since once an aide is assigned to a school they usually stay at that school. For example, an aide can be assigned to a specific student in the elementary school, but when the student moves to a junior high school the current aide stays at the elementary school and a new aide is hired at the junior high. The special education department recently sent out a form used by the SELPA for IEP teams to use in determining the need for a 1:1 aide. The form rates the student’s needs in four areas: health/personal care, behavior, instruction and inclusion/mainstreaming. This one form is not sufficient, particularly in view of the service delivery models in the districts. However, it is a good beginning to the process. Additional information and forms are included in Appendix I for the districts to consider in developing a process for evaluating the need for 1:1 aides. These documents refer to a 1:1 aide as a special circumstance aide. This title was chosen to ensure that all parties involved in the decision of requiring the aide as well as implementing the IEP understand that this is not designed to be a permanent position. When it is determined that a 1:1 aide is required, the IEP is to include specific goals for the aide support, a fading plan, and a plan for when the aide is absent. An important part of the discussion with the aide is their responsibilities if the student is absent. The special education department is reviewing both certificated and classified staffing for 2009-10. This is a very challenging task without specific information regarding the needs of the students at each site, the current program delivery model, specific aide assignments and standard aide/teacher ratios. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Develop very specific procedures to follow when a site or a parent requests a 1:1 aide. This includes forms to be completed prior to the IEP that includes parent input that will provide data to determine if additional support is needed. 2. Develop procedures to review all aide assignments every spring for the follow- ing school year based on projected numbers and disabilities at each school site, program delivery models, and school of attendance for students with 1:1 aides or with significant health/behavioral difficulties. Make all assignment changes before the end of the school year. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 49 3. Review all aide positions once a process for decision-making is developed. 4. Ensure that all new positions follow the decision-making process. 5. Develop policies, and if necessary board policies, that clearly define special education aides as being district aides and not specific site aides. These policies should include the roles and responsibilities of the site administrator and the spe- cial education department, and the transfer policy for special education aides. Community School A number of professional and parental sources information FCMAT that district site administrative staff often meet with the parents of students with disabilities who are being considered for expulsion and encourage them to seek voluntary enrollment in the community school operated by the county office of education (COE). Since the SELPA and the COE have agreed upon a maximum number of students that can be enrolled in the community school with placement in a special class required on their IEP, the site administrator and parent must agree to change the student’s placement to resource specialist so as to bypass this hurdle. When the normal voluntary enrollment period expires, the site administrator opposes efforts to replace the student at his/her school. This could result in serious compliance problems for the districts and the SELPA, and appears to be a clear attempt to bypass the requirement to determine whether or not an offending behavior is a manifestation of the student’s disability. The district, the SELPA, and the COE should work together to preclude this placement process from continuing. Recommendations The districts should: 1. Review the current procedures and practice between the districts and the county office of education regarding the manifestation/expulsion process for students with disabilities. Annual Performance Report Measures The district-level Special Education Annual Performance Report is produced by the CDE Special Education Division’s Assessment, Evaluation and Support Unit. The state collects data from districts in 14 areas and has set target criteria for quality performance. The CDE sets target levels and reports whether or not the districts’ performance met those criteria. Each year, the districts are expected to improve their performance as the targets approach the ideal limit. Since this report is supposed to be produced annually, it is a good practice for the Director of Special Education to present it each year. It will provide the board with firm criteria by which to evaluate the effectiveness of special education programs from the CDE’s perspective. Santa Barbara School Districts 50 PROGRAM REVIEW A complete copy of the annual performance measures for Santa Barbara Elementary and Santa Barbara High School districts can be found in Appendix H. The CDE has not released the report for 2007-08. Districts have anticipated these results for some time; however, there is no timeline for receipt. The following results are based on the 2006-07. In some instances, the districts have provided updated results for 2008, which are included in italics as appropriate. Indicator 1: Graduation Rate: Calculates the percentage of all exiting students in grade 12 who graduate from high school with a regular diploma. Santa Barbara met the target for 2006-07. Indicator 2: Dropout Rate: Calculates the percentage of all students in grades 7 and higher who exit special education by dropping out of school. Santa Barbara School Districts met the target and improved over the previous year. Indicator 3: Assessment in Grades 3, 8, and 10 A. Calculates the results of STAR testing scores to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. The target was to meet all areas. Santa Barbara School Districts met some but not all of the targets. Elementary: English/Language Arts Target = >2.4% Performance = 13.7% Target for 07-08 = 35.2 Math: Target =23.7% Performance = 19% Target for 07-08 = 25% Secondary: English/Language Arts Target = > 23.0% Performance = 13.8% Target 07-08 >34% Math: Target = >23.7% Performance = 13.4% Target 07-08 = >25.0 B. At least 95% of the special education students were tested in math and English/lan- guage arts. The districts met their targets in this area. C. The percent of students scoring proficient or advanced on the assessments met the dis- trict target percentage. The districts’ schools met the target in math and did not meet the target in English/language arts. Indicator 4: Suspension/Expulsion Calculates the percentage of special education students who were suspended or expelled for more than 10 days in a school year. The districts did not meet the target (Santa Barbara ESD by only .1% and Santa Barbara HSD by only .6%) Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team PROGRAM REVIEW 51 Indicator 5: Least Restrictive Environment Calculates the amount of time students’ ages 6 to 22 receive special education services in setting apart from their nondisabled peers. A. Out of regular class less than 21% of the time (this percentage should be increasing from year to year). The target was >56% The districts achieved 54.9% The districts did not meet the target. The target for 07-08 = 75.8% B. Out of regular class more than 60% of the time (this percentage should be decreasing from year to year. The districts met this target. C. Separate facility. Students served in a facility that educates only students with disabili- ties. This percentage should decrease each year. The districts met the target. Indicator 6 and 7 is a SELPA calculation only Indicator 8: Parent Involvement Calculates the percent of parents of children in special education reporting that schools facilitated their involvement as a means of improving services and results. The districts’ target was 74% and a new target for next year was 78%. Indicators 9-10: Overall Ethnic Disproportion due to Policies, Procedures and Practice Indicates whether there is ethnic among students ages 6-22 which may be due to policies, procedures or practices or the result of inappropriate identification. The districts were not disproportionate in either category. Indicators 11-14: Eligibility Evaluation (Initial) and Transition to Part B There are no reported measures in this area during the 2006-07 school year. Another measure of program effectiveness is to examine the achievement progress in the number of students with disabilities making adequate yearly progress outlined in No Child Left Behind. Over the past five years both the elementary and secondary districts have made significant gains in both English/Language Arts and Math. Santa Barbara School Districts 52 PROGRAM REVIEW Adequate Yearly Progress of Students with Disabilities Elementary Elementary Secondary Secondary School Year District ELA District Math District ELA District Math 2003-04 9.8% 12.9% 12.8% 11.8% 2004-05 10.1% 12.9% 17.2% 15.5% 2005-06 11.8% 18.5% 12.8% 13.8% 2006-07 13.6% 18.9% 14.5% 13.8% 2007-08 24.1% 29.8% 17.8% 16.0% Recommendations The districts should: 1. Ensure that special education students have access to standards-based curriculum aligned with the core curriculum for their grade level. 2. Identify the scientifically based curriculum and strategies to be used with students with disabilities and provide the necessary staff training to ensure successful implementation. 3. Train special education teachers regarding the core curriculum areas measured in state and district-level tests. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team APPENDICES 53 Appendices Appendix A – Parent Survey Appendix B – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Request Form Appendix C – Comparison of Similar School Districts Appendix D – Job Descriptions Appendix E – Staff Morale Survey Appendix F – Per-Student Expenditure Comparison Appendix G – Guide for Monitoring Program Budget and MOE Status Appendix H – Letter from state Superintendent of Public Instruction re: Service Delivery Appendix I – Annual Performance Report Measures Appendix J – Study Agreement Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix A Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix B Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix C Comparable Districts Santa Burbank Lake Lompoc Napa San Santa Tustin Upland Ventura Barbara Elsinore Valley Marcos Clara Special Ed X X X X X X Student Pupil Pupil X X Services Svcs Svcs Report to X X X X X X X X Asst. Supt. Report to X X Supt. Title Exec. Asst. Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Supt. Other No 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Directors Coordinator 1 2 0 3 1 2 3 0 1 Program 2 1 1 3 2.8 3 0 0 0 Specialists Supervisors 1.5 3 0 .5 0 0 0 0 0 3/staff Other spec. Nursing 1 No X X No No X X 0 X services Psych 1 X X X X X X X 0 X OT County X X X X X X X 0 X AT SELPA X None X No X X County X APE X No X X X X X X County X Speech X X No X X X X X X X Preschool County X X No No X X X County X Autism/ X X X X No X X X County X ABA NPS/NPA X X X X X X X X X X Legal X X X X X X X X X X State X X X X X X X X X X Records X X X X X X X X X X sped. Records all No No No No No No No X No No Expulsions No No No No No No No X No No SARB No No No No No No No X No No 504 X No No X No X No X No X Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix D-1 Executive Director: Special Education Salary Range: $110,557 – 123,330 Primary Function: The Executive Director of Special Education assumes overall management responsibility for the operations of the district’s special education and health services departments and reports to the Associate Superintendent Duties: 1. Develops and monitors the overall vision for special education in the Santa Barbara School Districts in collaboration with all stakeholders including parents, certificated and classified staff. 2. Assumes overall management responsibility for program design, compliance standards including instructional programs designed to maximize student perfor- mance. 3. Provides strong leadership in the oversight of the day to day operations of the special education and health services department. 4. Establishes clear lines of communication at all levels; district, site and parent community regarding special education. 5. Allocates resources, monitors the use of state, federal and local funds for special education programs 6. Assumes primary oversight of the Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) 7. Develops, monitors and manages the Special Education and Health Services budgets 8. Manages all litigation which includes due process, mediation and resolution meet- ings required in federal law. 9. Develops and maintains alternative dispute resolution models. 10. Investigates and resolves formal complaints for students with disabilities. 11. Supervises and evaluates the performance of assigned personnel 12. Serves as district liaison with SELPA and local and state agencies 13. Other duties as assigned Experience: Minimum of two years experience as a senior manager in special education. Five years experience in district-level work, including a wide range of assigned responsibilities. Extensive experience is required in managing special education services with a strong background in effective communication. Santa Barbara School Districts Appendix D-2 Director: Special Education Salary Range: $108-040 – 120,183 Primary Function: Manages the day to day operations of special education programs at an assigned level (elementary, secondary) and reports directly to the Executive Director of Special Education Duties: 1. Provides instructional leadership to school sites in the development of quality special education programs and services 2. Provides guidance and support to school sites in the areas of compliance with state and federal law and district procedure 3. Provides consistent communication on special education issues to all stakeholders 4. Assists in the allocation of resources and monitors the use of state, federal and local funds for special education 5. Develops a staffing plan based on student needs on an annual basis 6. Provides leadership in the informal resolution of complaints and due process issues 7. Ensures effective departmental communication between special education and all stakeholders 8. Supervises and evaluates assigned staff 9. Other duties as assigned Experience A minimum of five years successful teaching experience in special education or related field and a minimum of two years experience as a program specialist, program manager or coordinator of special education. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix D-3 Program Specialist: Special Education Salary Range: $74,619 base salary plus 15 extra days @$12,448 Primary Function: Provides guidance, training and support to all school site special educations programs. Ensures the implementation of services for all students with disabilities. The program specialist reports directly to the Director of Special Education. Duties: 1. Maintains the integrity of the special Education Department’s vision and mission. 2. Provides consistency in both procedure and practice through the district in all areas of special education 3. Provides assistance to the special education teaching staff in planning, organizing and coordinating services for students with disabilities 4. Maintains an open line of communication between parents and staff regarding the provision of special education services 5. Facilitation of difficult IEP meetings 6. Provide site administrators with information and support regarding special educa- tion compliance issues 7. Facilitate student placements to a more restrictive level, including but not limited to: resource specialist to special day class settings, district to regionalized and county programs, state school and/or non public school 8. Provides staff development to ensure effective practices in instruction and compli- ance with federal and state laws. 9. Assist in the planning and development of program evaluation 10. Other duties as assigned. Experience A minimum of five years successful teaching experience required Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix E Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix F Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix G Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix H Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix I Santa Barbara School Districts Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team Appendix J FISCAL CRISIS & MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TEAM STUDY AGREEMENT December 12, 2008 The FISCAL CRISIS AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TEAM (FCMAT), hereinafter referred to as the Team, and the Santa Barbara Schools, hereinafter referred to as the District, mutually agree as follows: 1. BASIS OF AGREEMENT The Team provides a variety of services to school districts and county offices of education upon request. The District has requested that the Team provide for the assignment of professionals to study specific aspects of the Santa Barbara Schools operations. These professionals may include staff of the Team, County Offices of Education, the California State Department of Education, school districts, or private contractors. All work shall be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. SCOPE OF THE WORK Scope and Objectives of the Study The scope and objectives of this study are: A. Fiscal Items: 1. Examine the current allocation of fiscal and support resources employed by the Santa Barbara SELPA and provide recommendations that if implemented, would increase revenue and/or curtail costs for the Santa Barbara Schools, including the operation of their own regional programs. 2. Advise the districts of the feasibility of becoming their own SELPA, including the associated expense or cost savings, liability and compliance issues. 3. Analyze the cost effectiveness of existing county operated vs. district operated programs. Santa Barbara School Districts 4. Evaluate the current special education facilities consortia operated by the SELPA and make recommendations to ensure that districts are not underwriting the facilities costs, including the cost of special education preschool facilities of other districts in the SELPA. B. Organizational Items: 1. Review the current organizational structure of special education and make recommendations to ensure effective clerical, program specialist and administrative support for programs and staff. 2. Advise the district on the appropriate configuration of top administrative positions in special education with recommendations for accountability and responsibilities. 3. Review the role of attorneys in the special education programs. 4. Review the reporting structure within the district for communication on special education litigation issues. 5. Review the resolution process for special education issues including resolution meetings, mediations, etc. C. Programmatic Items: 1. Review the effectiveness of the process for the assignment of teachers and aides in the district. 2. Examine the district procedures for special education. Review the extent to which RTI is being implemented. Review the level of parent participation and collaboration in the special education process. 3. Review Special Education staffing ratios and the allocation of FTE teachers to class size. 4. Review district procedures for determining the need for the instructional support of instructional aides and, when required by the IEP, for assuring the provision of trained instructional support in the event of absence on the part of the regularly assigned instructional aide. 5. B. Services and Products to be Provided 1) Orientation Meeting - The Team will conduct an orientation session at the District to brief District management and staff on the procedures of the Team and on the purpose and schedule of the study. Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team 2) On-site Review - The Team will conduct on-site meetings at the District office to gather documentation and conduct interviews. The Team will request assistance from the District in setting up interview schedules with staff. 3) Progress Reports - The Team will hold an exit meeting at the conclusion of the on-site reviews to inform the District representatives of significant findings and recommendations to that point. 4) Exit Letter - The Team will issue an exit letter approximately 10 days after the exit meeting detailing significant findings and recommendations to date and memorializing the topics discussed in the exit meeting. 5) Draft Reports - Sufficient copies of a preliminary draft report will be delivered to the District administration for review and comment. 6) Final Report - Sufficient copies of the final study report will be delivered to the District following completion of the review. 7) Follow-Up Support – Six months after the completion of the study, FCMAT will return to the District, if requested, to confirm the District’s progress in implementing the recommendations included in the report, at no costs. Status of the recommendations will be documented to the District in a FCMAT Management Letter. 3. PROJECT PERSONNEL The study team will be supervised by Anthony L. Bridges, Deputy Executive Officer, Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office. The study team may also include: A. Dr. William Gillaspie, FCMAT Chief Management Analyst B. James “Sarge” Kennedy, FCMAT Special Education Consultant C. JoAnn Murphy, FCMAT Special Education Consultant D. Ann Stone, FCMAT Special Education Consultant Other equally qualified consultants will be substituted in the event one of the above noted individuals is unable to participate in the study. Santa Barbara School Districts 4. PROJECT COSTS The cost for studies requested pursuant to E.C. 42127.8(d)(1) shall be: A. $500.00 per day for each Team Member, while on site, conducting fieldwork at other locations, preparing and presenting reports, or participating in meetings. B. All out-of-pocket expenses, including travel, meals, lodging, etc. Based on the elements noted in section 2 A, the total cost of the study is estimated at $24,000. The District will be invoiced at actual costs, with 50% of the estimated cost due following the completion of the on-site review and the remaining amount due upon acceptance of the final report by the District. C. Any change to the scope will affect the estimate of total cost. Payments for FCMAT services are payable to Kern County Superintendent of Schools- Administrative Agent. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT A. The District will provide office and conference room space while on-site reviews are in progress. B. The District will provide the following (if requested): 1) A map of the local area 2) Existing policies, regulations and prior reports addressing the study request 3) Current organizational charts 4) Current and four (4) prior year’s audit reports 5) Any documents requested on a supplemental listing C. The District Administration will review a preliminary draft copy of the study. Any comments regarding the accuracy of the data presented in the report or the practicability of the recommendations will be reviewed with the Team prior to completion of the final report. Pursuant to EC 45125.1(c), representatives of FCMAT will have limited contact with District pupils. The District shall take appropriate steps to comply with EC 45125.1(c). Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule outlines the planned completion dates for key study milestones: Orientation: Late February or early March, 2009 Staff Interviews: March, 2009 Exit Interviews: March, 2009 Preliminary Report Submitted: Six weeks following the exit meeting Final Report Submitted: to be determined Board Presentation: to be determined Follow-Up Support: If requested 7. CONTACT PERSON Please print name of contact person: Eric D. Smith, Deputy Superintendent Telephone 805 963-4338, ext 289 FAX 805 963-5685 Internet Address esmith@sbsdk12.org Brian Sarvis, Superintendent Date Santa Barbara Schools December 12, 2008 Barbara Dean, Deputy Administrative Officer Date Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team In keeping with the provisions of AB1200, the County Superintendent will be notified of this agreement between the District and FCMAT and will receive a copy of the final report. Santa Barbara School Districts