Response to the MGT Review of PPS and Special Education ...



GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Greenwich, Connecticut

Title of Item Review of PPS Report

Policy Reference Agenda No. 4.

REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION OR PRESENTATION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEM

Action Required

By:

X Informational Only

Submitted By: Mary P. Forde

Position: Director of Pupil Personnel Services

I will be present at Board meeting to explain if called upon:

X

Yes No

Synopsis of Proposal:

The district commissioned a study of the Pupil Personnel and Special Education Services during the 2005-2006 school year. The resulting report, “Review of the Pupil Personnel and Special Education Support and Services for Greenwich Public Schools” was presented to the Board. The attached document summarizes the actions the district has taken to date in response to the recommendations contained in the report.

Additionally, questions were raised regarding the relationship of the MGT findings to a previous report completed in 1997. A comparison of the recommendations is also attached.

Recommended Action (if appropriate):

Status Report on the Response to the MGT Recommendations

The Office of Pupil Personnel Services prepared a response to the recommendations made in the MGT “Review of Pupil Personnel and Special Education Support and Services for Greenwich Public Schools.” The response was presented to the Board of Education in the spring of 2006. The response described the priorities in the recommendations that were identified by stakeholder groups as the areas that would have the most impact on the quality of services provided to students, particularly students with disabilities, in the Greenwich Public Schools. The three areas of focus were: Early Intervention; Strategic Planning and Organizational Structure; Curriculum Development and Instructional Practices; and Collaboration and Inclusive Practices.

Suggested Areas of Focus

Early intervention

Statement of desired future:

Early Intervention and Student Assistance Team (SAT) processes in place in every school and are compliant with the district standards which describe the roles and responsibilities of the members of the SAT, the expectations for all instructional and support staff, referral, intervention and evaluation procedures, the role of parents, accountability measures and required professional learning opportunities.

GOAL Produce a summary document that provides comprehensive descriptions of current district procedures used in early intervention including models for the implementation of student assistance teams.

Target date: December 2006

ACTIVITIES TO DATE

• Development of an interview protocol to be used with school-based administrators to identify current early intervention strategies including:

- roles and responsibilities

- process and procedures, including referrals

- documentation (forms)

- interventions

- assessments

- relationship to ISIP and special education

ACTIVITIES PLANNED

• Conduct individual interviews, on-site, with each school’s administration, using the protocol.

Target date: December 2006

• Compile interview information into summary document that describes the current practices.

Target date: January 2007

GOAL Development and distribution of consistent expectations for school based student assistance/early intervention procedures reflecting best practices.

Target date: June 2007

ACTIVITIES PLANNED

• Convene a work group to compile information regarding best practices in student assistance teams/early intervention. The work group will use this information, in conjunction with the summary of current district practices, to develop district expectations for early intervention/student assistance teams (“Standards for Early Intervention and Student Assistance Teams”).

Target date: March 2007

• The work group will develop a rubric, based on the “Standards for Early Intervention and Student Assistance Teams” that schools will use to evaluate their current practices.

Target date: May 2007

GOAL Staff members in each school will evaluate their current practices implementing early intervention and student assistance teams using the “Standards for Early Intervention and Student Assistance Teams” rubric and develop program improvement plans.

Target date: September 2007

GOAL All schools meet the district standard for early intervention/student assistance team procedures as evidenced by self-evaluation using the “Standards for Early Intervention and Student Assistance Teams” rubric.

Target date: June 2008

ACTIVITIES PLANNED

• Professional learning activities are provided to address implementation gaps identified through the use of the “Standards for Early Intervention and Student Assistance Teams” rubric.

Target date: September 2007-June 2008

Strategic Planning and Organizational Structure

Statement of desired future

The district’s organizational structure, policies and procedures and roles and responsibilities are closely aligned and designed to achieve the outcomes described in the Greenwich Public Schools multi-year Strategic Plan. The plan may include outcomes that would be responsive to the concerns raised about the services provided to students with disabilities and individual support needs including:

• Alternative program options are available to meet the needs of students with unique and/or challenging instructional and support needs both within and outside the high school building;

• An annual report is presented to the Board that expands the information in the Special Education Profile describing the performance and participation of students with disabilities in the Greenwich Public Schools, including compliance with paperwork requirements of IDEA;

• Mental health providers support students with behavior challenges using a standardized process that is outcome-based and can be monitored through consistent documentation and results in reduction in barriers to learning and increased academic success and positive behaviors; and

• District, building and program leadership embrace the philosophy of inclusive education and have the skills and knowledge to insure that all students, including students with disabilities, participate fully and meaningfully in all aspects of the school experience.

GOAL Continuous Improvement Planning Team in place and responding to Superintendent’s charge.

Target date: August 2006

ACTIVITIES TO DATE

• First meeting of the Planning Team held on October 10, 2006

• Completion of the draft components of the PPS Annual Report including:

- Program Status Reports for each department;

- Special Education Strategic School Profile (SESSP);

- Analysis of SESSP results;

- P.J. data map;

- Evaluation Team Report;

- IEP Mastery Data; and

- Disaggregated results from CMT and CAPT administration.

ACTIVITIES PLANNED

• Second meeting of Planning Group – agenda items will include:

- Review draft of PPS Annual Report;

- Review results from school interviews regarding the current practices in early intervention/student assistance teams; and

- Develop action plans for other focus areas.

Target date: February 2007

GOAL Presentation of PPS Annual Report to Board of Education

Target Date: March 2007

Curriculum Development and Instructional Practices

Statement of desired future

The district has moved from a reactive approach to curriculum and instruction (taking a curriculum/set of objectives/published set of materials and adapting them for high ability learners, English as second language learners and students with disabilities) to a proactive approach (designing the curricula to include extension and remedial activities, introducing all new initiatives with strategies for differentiating instruction, including representatives for support services in all development and selection activities). The principles of Universal Design, listed below, are incorporated into all aspects of curriculum and instruction:

• Flexible methods of presentation;

o Multiple examples

o Concrete and contextual

o Multiple media, materials and formats

o Critical features

• Flexible methods of expression;

o Flexible models of skilled performance

o Opportunities to practice with supports

o Ongoing relevant feedback

o Flexible opportunities for demonstrating skill

• Flexible methods of engagement; and

o Adjustable levels of challenge

o Choice of rewards

o Choice of learning context

o Choice of content and tools.

The processes for developing and implementing curricula, designing school schedules and routines, providing professional learning and allocating staff are designed to support and maximize the meaningful participation of all students, including students with special learning needs, in all curricular instruction and extracurricular activities using the strategies of Universal Design and differentiated instruction

GOAL Recommendations for common assessments, student expectations and Tier I and II materials for encoding/decoding

Target date: September 2006

ACTIVITIES TO DATE

• Committee members were identified and a series of ongoing meetings were held. As a result of the committee’s work, the following actions were taken:

- Identification of core skills in the encoding and decoding components of a balanced literacy program

- Selection and purchase of Tier I instructional materials.

- Staff development provided to teachers working in grades K-2.

- Identification of proposed interventions for Tier II.

ACTIVITIES PLANNED

• Identify the instructional components, student characteristics, staff roles and responsibilities and assessments used in the tiered model of intervention in the area of literacy.

Target date: June 2007

GOAL Development of a consistent format for curriculum development that reflects the needs of all learners.

Target date: June 2007

ACTIVITIES TO DATE

• Presentation and discussion of the characteristics of “Universal Design for Instruction” with Curriculum Coordinators

ACTIVITIES PLANNED

• PLP for administrators on the development of the revised curriculum format.

January-May 2007

Collaboration and Inclusive Practices

Statement of desired future

All content area teachers demonstrate the skills required to provide differentiated instruction to a heterogeneously grouped class of students in their subject areas, resulting in increased participation of students from No Child Left Behind subgroups in higher-level academic classes.

GOAL Professional Learning Program activities are provided that increase staff capacity to teach all students effectively.

ACTIVITIES TO DATE

• Presentation of workshop, offered to staff through the Professional Learning Program at both district and school level in the following areas:

- Motivating Difficult Students in the Arts

- Positive Behavior Supports

- Responsive Classroom

- Understanding by Design

- Assistive Technology

- Communicating and Collaborating with Families

- Assessing Students with Autism Spectrum Disabilities

- Assessment of Bilingual Learners-Language Difference or Disorder

- Social Emotional Learning

- Co-Teaching at the High School Level

- Collaborative Teaching

- Teaching Struggling Readers

GOAL Schools utilize schedule options that increase the opportunities for staff members to meet and discuss students with individual/challenging support needs.

Target date: September 2007

ACTIVITIES PLANNED

• Presentation of the scheduling options in the State Education Departments “Step by Step” planning program to school based administrators.

Target date: December 2006

GOAL District is in compliance with the requirements of the P.J. settlement regarding “Time with NonDisabled Peers”

Target date: June 2007

ACTIVITIES TO DATE AND PLANNED

• Staff participation in Professional Learning activities (previously described).

• Provision of on-site support and technical assistance to school teams in the development of Individual Educational Plans (IEP) that increase time with non-disabled peers

Additionally, questions have been raised regarding the relationship of the recommendations found in the 1997 Gold Report to the recommendations made by the MGT group in 2005. In comparing the recommendations from the two reports it can be noted that:

- there are recommendations from the Gold Report that were addressed and were not noted as concerns by MGT (for example: Exit Criteria, Multiple Services, OT/PT)

- there are recommendations made by MGT that were not contained in the Gold Report (for example: Positive Behavior Supports, Tracking/Grouping, Teacher Evaluation Process)

- there are some recommendations that are included in both reports (for example: Early Reading Instruction, Student Assistant Teams and High School programs/courses).

In general, the concerns that persisted across the two reports were issues that involved multiple departments, programs and schools. This may be due to the perception that the Gold Report was the sole responsibility of “special education” and did not require a comprehensive, district-wide response. In comparison, the many of the response to the recommendations in the MGT report have been developed jointly with the Deputy and Assistant Superintendents. Both the concerns, the recommendations and the responses are being addressed through collaboration and multiple stakeholder participation. This systemic approach should result in actions that will respond to the persistent concerns cited in both reports.

Attached is the graphic comparison of the recommendations of the two reports and the actions that were undertaken in response. The actions in response to the Gold Report were taken from a document prepared in 2003. The actions in response to the MGT Report are those that have been completed or are in process as of this update.

COMPARISON OF MGT AND GOLD REPORTS AND RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|INCIDENCE and TECHNOLOGY |• All IEPs are computerized |4.2 | |

|a. The incidence data found in the tables be |• A new student accounting system has been |Formalize the internal monitoring system used |• Completion of the draft components of the PPS|

|carefully studied and that the information |purchased (and is in use) that is compatible with|in Greenwich to include a written report to the|Annual Report including: |

|presented be viewed as a tool upon which |the Starbase system (Roundup). The goal for this|school principal, the Director of Pupil |Program Status Reports for each department |

|decisions can be made. |year is to link Starbase and Roundup. The next |Personnel Services, and the Deputy |Special Education Strategic School Profile |

|A data base be established, including |goal would be to link the IEP program to Roundup.|Superintendent charged with the evaluating |(SESSP) |

|historical data, to monitor longitudinal |• A position has been established to coordinate |principals. |Analysis of SESSP results |

|trends |all assistive technology including, assistive | |P.J. data map |

| |technology evaluations, purchase and maintenance |4.3 |Evaluation Team Report |

|A database of record keeping, longitudinal |of equipment and training of school staff. |Develop routine management reports documenting |IEP Mastery Data |

|tracking, and comparative year-to-year data |• Each school has at least one person who has |compliance with routine requirements such as |Disaggregated results from CMT and CAPT |

|is established for the special education |been trained as a “point person” in the school. |IEPs, and reevaluations completed within |administration |

|department. |Some schools have developed technology teams as |timelines and issued to local schools at least | |

|Priority consideration be given to assistive |the result of a State grant. |a monthly basis. | |

|technology in order to help special education|• District has a “Technology Team” consisting of | | |

|students become more language fluent |staff and parents that meet regularly to |4.34 | |

|Special education staff become more |coordinate district activities. |GPS should include information identifying the | |

|knowledgeable about technology, what |• The district has developed and implemented a |number of students served, measurable goals and| |

|computers can do to make their jobs efficient|“Technology Guide” and a “Technology |objectives, as well as associated indicators of| |

|and effective, how computers can assist and |Consideration Form” that is used at every annual |performance for special education programs. | |

|enhance the learning of many |review. | | |

| |• Numerous staff development workshops have been | | |

| |offered (both voluntary and required) on the use |4.4 | |

| |of assistive technology. |Create secure remote access (via VPN or an | |

| | |other method) for teachers and other | |

| | |appropriate personnel (off school site) so that|• Meetings held with K-12 America to change |

| | |teachers may use the system on a voluntary |from the current “stand alone” computer |

| | |basis. |assisted IEP program (Filemaker Pro) to a web |

| | | |enabled program that is linked to the |

| | |4.9 |Starbase/Roundup program. Pending approval of |

| | |Ensure that the IEP computer software is |revised IEP format from the State Education |

| | |compatible with the district’s information |Department, implementation is targeted for |

| | |management system. |early 2007. |

| | | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|PLANNING AND PLACEMENT TEAMS |• All assistant principals and housemasters have |No Recommendations | |

|a. Consideration be given to the most |received training on the use of the Facilitated | | |

|efficient and effective ways to conduct each |IEP Process. This set of procedures is designed | | |

|PPT and that only those essential to the |to streamline meetings and reduce confrontation | | |

|process should be in attendance |and conflict. | | |

|LITERACY and OVERINDENTIFICATION |• Evaluation Teams in each cluster (consisting of|4.6 |• Survey tool developed to be used during |

|Greenwich establish procedures for evaluating|a psychologist, speech therapist, and an |Implement a system wide early intervention |interviews with school-based administrators on |

|students’ reading skill development and |educational evaluator) conduct all initial |process prior to referral for evaluation for |the current practices in the early |

|provide those who need this type of program |evaluations to insure consistency in application |special education services |intervention/student assistance team procedures|

|with a daily phonemic program based on |of eligibility criteria. | |in each school. |

|individual diagnostic data. |• Cluster evaluation teams meet regularly to | |• Individual Student Intervention Plans (ISIP) |

|Greenwich reestablish secondary school |review completed cases to monitor consistency in | |are developed for every student not reaching |

|reading program for students who have not |application of criteria. | |goal on the statewide assessments |

|mastered fundamental skills. |• Criteria Handbook, describing the specific | | |

|c. All incoming K-12 students should be |requirements for eligibility, has been written | |• District literacy committee was convened with|

|evaluated for level of reading skills |and distributed to each staff member. | |shared leadership between language arts and |

| |• Implementation of the “Green Folders” which are|4.15 |special education to identify an |

|a. Criteria for admission to special |used to document the early interventions |Implement an explicit and systematic reading |encoding/decoding program that would be used |

|education programs be reviewed by special |activities that are required prior to making a |program in Kindergarten through grade 3. |consistently throughout the district. |

|education administrators with each PPT and |referral for special education evaluation. | |• Program was selected, materials purchased and|

|the entire administrative staff. |• Each elementary school has a full time speech |4.29 |staff development delivered to teachers in |

|PPTs consistently adhere to admission |therapist to allow for additional time in the |Provide staff development for teachers |grades K-2 |

|requirements. |early grades to identify students at-risk for |regarding explicit and systematic reading | |

| |reading difficulties and provide technical |instruction in grades Kindergarten through 3 | |

| |assistance to teachers and early intervention | | |

| |activities with students. | | |

| | | | |

b.

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|LITERACY and OVERINDENTIFICATION (continued) |• Two reading teachers assigned to the high | | |

|A data monitoring be established for all |school and one special education teacher to focus| | |

|schools so that early level PPTs can be |on reading/linguistics courses. | | |

|reviewed by principals for adherence to the |• Purchase of the Lexia computer program for | | |

|criteria. |every school to provide additional strategies for| | |

|Much more extensive discussion about |students with reading difficulties. | | |

|alternative strategies to special education |• Provision of staff development in Project Read | | |

|placement be systematically developed. |for new teachers | | |

|Staff come to grips with the issues in a | | | |

|variety of problem solving forums: staff | | | |

|development workshops; using Greenwich case | | | |

|studies; PSTs: PPTs; and building level | | | |

|meetings. | | | |

|The Greenwich Public Schools undertake a | | | |

|Student Assistance Team model (a team | | | |

|composed of regular education teachers with | | | |

|pupil personnel and special education | | | |

|consulting assistance) especially at the | | | |

|lower grades. It is further recommended that| | | |

|the Greenwich Public Schools consider | | | |

|consulting with the State Special Education | | | |

|Resource Center on establishing and training | | | |

|student assistance teams. | | | |

|Staff development be provided on criteria for| | | |

|admission, managing pressure from parents, | | | |

|improving communication with parents, and on | | | |

|non-special education ways to work with | | | |

|diverse learners. | | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|FILES AND PAPERWORK |• Development of the cover sheet and file review |Initiate a system wide process for maintaining |• Staff development for all clerical support |

|a. All files be reviewed, that any missing |forms used to evaluate compliance of student |accurate student records. |staff, certified special education and PPS |

|documents be tracked down, and that file |records/files | |staff and administrators on the development of |

|organization guidelines be established and |• Staff member assigned to review files in every | |the IEP documents and the appropriate storage |

|approved by the board of education special |school, using the file review format, to update | |and distribution of files. |

|education attorney |and correct file contents. | | |

| | |Maintain confidentiality of student records and|• Files moved from public spaces to secure |

| | |secure them in an area inaccessible to the |locations at the Havemeyer building. |

| | |general public. | |

|SERVICE DELIVERY |• Cluster administrators meet with school |No Recommendations | |

|Central office administration review with |administrators on a regular basis to review | | |

|elementary school PPTs whether the service |student services. | | |

|deliver recommended is appropriate and has |• Each school is responsible for the management | | |

|been delivered in a timely fashion. |of students in out-of-district placements with | | |

|Early prevention should be a priority and |support and technical assistance from cluster | | |

|staff should be reassigned to support |administrators and district-wide social worker | | |

|elementary service needs. | | | |

|With few exceptions, responsibility for case | | | |

|management be shifted from central office | | | |

|special education administration to school | | | |

|based special education staff. | | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|MULTIPLE SERVICES |• School-based teams use the Facilitated IEP |No Recommendations | |

|Building administrators, including teachers |process to plan, organize and conduct the | | |

|and central office pupil personnel staff, |multidisciplinary team meetings. | | |

|address the multi-service issue in joint | | | |

|meetings to investigate alternative solutions| | | |

|such as consultation with teachers in lieu of| | | |

|direct service. | | | |

|STAFFING |• All teachers, with one exception are assigned |4.38 |• Staffing guideline for special education |

|All part time positions be examined, |to a single building. No GPS related service |GPS should implement centralized staff |teachers was adjusted to reflect special |

|consolidated into full time positions where |provider is on more than two buildings. |allocation guidelines or procedures. |education hours directly from the IEP |

|possible, and that future part time positions|• Established a teacher staffing ratio of 1:8 for| |20+ hours of special ed 1:6 |

|be permitted only when it can be demonstrated|students who receive more than 50% of their | |10-20 hours of special ed 1:12 |

|that there is no other staffing alternative |academic work under the direction of special | |10 or less hours of special ed 1:25 |

|Staffing ratios or guidelines be developed to|education staff and 1:25 for students who receive| |high school 1:35 |

|provide increased equity in case loads. |less than 50% of their academic work under the | | |

|The travel between school be carefully |direction of special education staff | |Paraprofessional staffing guidelines |

|examined and that assignments be made that | | |Elementary |

|will reduce travel time and time out of | | |20+ hours of special ed 1:1 |

|buildings to a minimum. | | |10-20 hours of special ed 1:4 |

| | | |10 or less hours of special ed 1:12 |

| | | |Middle/High School |

| | | |20+ hours of special ed 1:2 |

| | | |10-20 hours of special ed 1:12 |

| | | |10 or less hours of special ed 1:25 |

| | | |high school 1:35 |

| | | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|EXIT CRITERIA |• Cluster administrators meet regularly with |No Recommendations | |

|School principals be responsible for insuring|school administration to review cases | | |

|that PPT review exit criteria are met and |particularly when exiting or entering students. | | |

|determine, in consultation with the case |• Procedures manual revised (“Red Book”) and PPS | | |

|manager, that each child has met IEP goals in|memo system established to clarify procedural | | |

|order to return children to the classroom as |issues. | | |

|soon as it is appropriate and possible. | | | |

|A system be developed to track and report | | | |

|exit data. | | | |

|OT/PT |• District has hired one OT and one PT who |No Recommendations | |

|A study be undertaken to determine the |provide service to preschool students and who | | |

|feasibility of Greenwich hiring its own OT |complete the majority of initial evaluations. | | |

|and PT personnel |• Currently working with the consulting agency to| | |

|b. Consultation by OTs and PTs in lieu of |look at alternative models of service provision. | | |

|direct service be explored |• Developed and distributed a guide to school | | |

| |based/educational OT and PT comparing the model | | |

| |to medically based services. | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|INCLUSION |• High school inclusion committee established to |4.5 |• Increase in the number of collaborative |

|The teacher’s role in the inclusion be |help plan for implementation of best practices |Examine current practices related to |classes at Greenwich High School including |

|clarified, as well as the role of the person |and inclusive programming. |implementation of the PJ Settlement Agreement, |support in higher-level courses. |

|with the responsibility for coordination, |• Development and implementation of staff |especially at the high school level. | |

|case management and contact with parents. |development for PPS, special and general |4.12 | |

|The academic, emotional, physical and social |education staff on the use of differentiated |Expand the collaborative teaching model to | |

|goals of inclusion be clearly delineated and |instruction, collaborative teaching, social skill|higher-level academic classes at Greenwich High| |

|that these goals dictate the degree of |development, positive behavior supports and |School. | |

|inclusion and how they will be implemented. |addressing the needs of students with | | |

|The number of inclusion students approaching |disabilities in general education settings. | | |

|high school age be verified and that |• “Paraprofessional Academy” offered each summer |4.13 |• PLP sessions on working with challenging |

|immediate steps be take to plan for and train|to new paraprofessionals and paras hired during |Integrate learning strategies and |learners, introductory presentation to |

|teachers to work with these students. |the previous school year. Staff development |differentiated instruction into the general |curriculum coordinators on the principles of |

|On-going staff development be provided to |provided throughout the school year for |education curriculum. |“Universal Design for Instruction” |

|regular education teachers who work with |paraprofessionals. |4.14 |• Presentations to high school staff on the |

|inclusion students |• Procedures in place for evaluating the needs of|GPS should implement appropriate modifications |P.J. settlement and its implications for |

|A critical review of all policies and |individual students for paraprofessional support.|for students with disabilities at the middle |instruction, special education supports and |

|practices related to inclusion should be | |and high school level. |services and class composition. |

|undertaken. Particular attention should be | | | |

|directed to those practices that work | | | |

|especially well in Greenwich (as well as | | |• “time” and the scheduling of schools to |

|other school districts); those that may be | |4.16 |support more teacher collaboration time is one |

|counter productive should be eliminated. | |Develop common time for special education and |of the district’s initiatives and is one of the|

|Greenwich train a cadre of career aides who | |general education teachers to allow appropriate|focus areas for the Continuous Improvement |

|are not certified teachers looking for | |consultation and collaborative planning for |Committee |

|teaching positions. The latter has resulted | |students with disabilities |• Presentation to administrators on the |

|in a high anneal turnover and constant | | |scheduling component of the “Step by Step” |

|replacement of staff. | | |program |

|Each inclusion student’s needs be assessed to| | | |

|determine if a full time aide is required for| | | |

|every child | | |• An additional school was added this year to |

| | |GPS should utilize Project EVOLVE to expand |Project EVOLVE. Currently, four schools are |

| | |consultative services from professional staff |participating. |

| | |throughout the district and reduce the over | |

| | |reliance of paraprofessionals | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|LEGAL AND LITIGATION |• Current practice remains the use of the Town |4.10 |• On a case by case, the Town Law Department |

|The Greenwich Board of Education and |Attorney’s office for the majority of cases. |Conduct a Risk Analysis of the school system |supports the use of outside counsel. |

|administration take immediate action to study|Discussion has been held with the town law |over the last three years disputes to determine| |

|the alternative approaches for legal |department concerning possible alternative |those practices that must be changed to reduce |• The practices that led to due process |

|representation and which alternative will |strategies. |the school system’s exposure to expensive |requests are presented to staff and |

|provide the Greenwich Public Schools with the| |disputes. |administrators during regularly scheduled |

|most effective and cost efficient service. | | |department meetings along with any recommended |

|As an integral part of legal service, the | |4.37 |procedural changes. |

|provider should assist the staff of the | |GPS should develop a budget item for mediation |• Budget line created for settlements that are |

|Greenwich Public Schools with a staff | |and due process settlements. |not for payment of tuition or related services.|

|development program designed to avoid legal | | | |

|entanglements. | | | |

|FACILITIES |• All students attend their home school unless | |• Eastern Middle School was renovated to make |

|Stable and permanent housing for K-8 special |there are physical barriers or there has been a | |it fully accessible to students with mobility |

|education classes be incorporated into plans |special accommodation made. | |impairments. |

|b. The housing of special education programs | | | |

|within Greenwich High School be reviewed and | | | |

|that the programs be integrated into the | | | |

|mainstream of the high school | | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|TRANSPORTATION |• Transportation remains with Pupil Personnel |4.36 |• Special education transportation, both in and|

|Consideration be given to the realignment of |Services. |GPS Department of Business Services should |out of district, are coordinated and managed by|

|staff in order to consolidate the |• Due to the location Greenwich in Fairfield |coordinate and manage budgeting for special |the district Transportation Coordinator with |

|transportation function under the Office of |County, most shared runs are not feasible |education transportation. |support from PPS. |

|Operations. | | | |

|Cooperative transportation to outplacement | | | |

|sites be explored with neighboring school | | | |

|districts. | | | |

|NON-RESIDENT STUDENT |• Research and Evaluation has contracted with a |No Recommendations | |

|Appropriate steps be taken to ascertain the |private consultant to investigate residency | | |

|validity of all student attendance questions |questions. | | |

|and that immediate steps be taken by the | | | |

|administration to correct the problem (prior | | | |

|investigative services may at time be | | | |

|required). | | | |

|A reinstitution of a yearly school census | | | |

|program be studied. | | | |

|OUTPLACEMENTS |• One staff member (social worker) coordinates |4.24 |• “Consideration Guide For Students Who May |

|A systematic procedure be put in place to |outplacements with support from cluster |GPS should develop clear criteria to assist |Require An Out-Of-District Placement” |

|monitor the progress of outplaced students. |administrators and school-based staff. |PPTs in making decisions about out-of-district |distributed to schools to be used as a |

|Staff take greater initiative in seeking less| |placements. |guideline when considering placements for |

|costly and acceptable outplacement | | |students. |

|alternatives. | | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|STAFF DEVELOPMENT |• Staff development activities are coordinated |4.30 |• District has developed a series of PLP |

|Staff Development, with a focus on |through a cluster administrator and reflect |GPS should provide staff development for school|activities for administrators that is focused |

|thoroughness, should be carefully formulated |topics suggested by staff and indicated by |administrators regarding effective |on leadership, particularly in the areas of |

|to accomplish system wide and building goals |litigation and regulation. |instructional leadership. |instruction and curriculum and staff |

|and objectives. |• Whenever appropriate PPS and special education | |evaluations. |

| |staff participate in school-based staff | | |

| |development activities as well as program |4.31 | |

| |initiatives. |GPS should offer staff development regarding |• PLPs are available for staff in all areas |

| | |differentiated instruction and learning |that include strategies for meeting the needs |

| | |strategies to teachers and administrators. |of all learners. |

| | | |• Additional time allocated for building use to|

| | |4.32 |facilitate collaborative planning time in |

| | |Create staff development procedures that |schools. |

| | |include collaborative planning, teaming, and | |

| | |time management among general and special | |

| | |education teachers and staff | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM |• There has been an increase in the number of |4.18 | |

|The Greenwich Board of Education authorize a |student attending BOCES vocational programs |GPS should develop a plan expand vocational |• Continuing to expand opportunities with |

|study of the vocational/technical |including cosmetology, culinary, automotive. |education classes at Greenwich High School |Wright Technical School and explore continuing |

|alternatives with a school-to-work focus that|• A Transition Committee meets regularly to | |options with BOCES. |

|would be made available to Greenwich High |expand the options and refine the process for | | |

|School students |supporting students as they prepare to exit the |4.19 | |

|The high school develop a student study team |Greenwich Public Schools. |GPS should develop collaborative agreements |• Continuing with outreach to local colleges |

|model that will focus its attention on |• The high school staff now includes a Transition|with community agencies to provide |that would be interested in developing a |

|providing sound educational alternatives for |Coordinator (works with families and outside |age-appropriate services to students with |collaborative program for students with |

|students with behavior and attendance |agencies to insure smooth transition to adult |disabilities who are eighteen to twenty-one |disabilities (ages 18-21) who would participate|

|problems. |services, teaches the School to Career classes at|years of age. |in college activities. |

|A prescribed professional development program|GHS and ARCH) and a Job Developer (works in the | | |

|be established for secondary school teachers |community to supervise job sites and develop new | | |

|who have difficulty altering their teaching |employment and training opportunities for | | |

|practices, teaching strategies and working |students with disabilities, development of |4.21 |• Continuing to explore potential sites to |

|with heterogeneous classes |internship opportunities for ARCH). |Develop a plan for the development and |house both ARCH and CLP. |

|The high school administration examine the |• Increase in the number of collaboratively |implementation of a comprehensive alternative | |

|course offerings in each department for their|taught classes, expanding access to general |education to serve students who are at-risk due| |

|appropriateness for average and below average|education opportunities for students with |to social/emotional and behavioral issues, | |

|students |disabilities (increase also reflected at the |including those with disabilities | |

| |middle school level). | | |

| |• Establishment of house-based student |4.40 | |

| |assistance teams |Consolidate the ARCH Program and the Community | |

| |• Established the position of part-time behavior |Learning Program to cost-share expenses and | |

| |consultant to review and support any student who |avoid the duplication of funds and resources. | |

| |is being considered for referral for behavioral | | |

| |concerns (provides support to students and | | |

| |technical assistance to teams). | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

|REORGANIZATION |• Instituted the role of the Cluster |4.1 | |

|a. The role of the high school special |Administrator to provide support and technical |Reorganize the Department of Pupil Personnel |• District administrative study in progress. |

|education administration in relation to the |assistance to all school-based administrators. |Services. | |

|K-8 administration reorganization and the |• Director’s Advisory is a monthly forum for | | |

|high school administrative structure be |school-based and cluster administrators to meet | | |

|analyzed and possibly restructured |and discuss consistent approaches to special | | |

| |education and PPS issues, concerns and procedures| | |

|PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES. |• Tenured staff are evaluated by the building |4.11 | |

|A central office administrator (preferably |administration. Non-tenured staff have a |Develop an annual special education strategic |• Decision was made not to develop a separate |

|someone with a PPS background) be assigned to|building based prime evaluator and a PPS |plan including a mission, vision, goals, |plan for PPS, but to incorporate the program |

|the supervision of PPS staff, in conjunction |administrator as the bridge evaluator. |objectives, activities, evaluation, and a scope|improvement recommendations into existing |

|with building principals, and the | |and sequence timeline of training and education|district initiatives whenever possible. |

|coordination of the PPS staff. | |support activities for its schools. | |

|A long term plan for the PPS department be | | | |

|developed including a focus on reviewing and | | | |

|clarifying goals, roles, procedures, | | | |

|allocation of staff, and the relationship | | | |

|central office and the individual schools. | | | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

| | |POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORTS | |

| | |4.20 | |

| | |Determine the degree of implementation of the |• Provide two PLP series on PBS implementation.|

| | |PBIS model in GPS and provide technical | |

| | |assistance to schools in its implementation. | |

| | | | |

| | |4.22 | |

| | |Include clear, measurable, and expected |• PLP for mental health providers on the |

| | |behavioral outcomes on the behavior |development of PLEP (present level of |

| | |intervention plan for students with |educational performance) statements and |

| | |disabilities. |behavioral goals including condition, behavior,|

| | | |criteria and evaluation. |

| | |4.23 | |

| | |Assess programs for students with social, | |

| | |emotional, and behavioral issues using program | |

| | |monitoring tools or other selected monitoring | |

| | |tools that measure process and results. | |

| | |PARENT SURVEY | |

| | | |• In progress – change in agency personnel have|

| | |4.33 |delayed receipt of raw data. |

| | |Codify the special education parent survey | |

| | |responses and establish goals to address | |

| | |parental concerns | |

| | |FINANCE | |

| | | |• Not addressed at this time. |

| | |4.35 | |

| | |GPS should transfer all special education | |

| | |budget planning and allocations to the | |

| | |Department of Business Services. | |

| | | | |

| | |4.39 | |

| | |GPS should consider accessing the Medicaid | |

| | |reimbursement program. | |

|1997 Gold Report Recommendations |Actions as of 2003 in Response to the Gold Report|2005 MGT Report Recommendations |Actions To Date in Response to MGT |

| | | |Recommendations |

| | |DISTRICT INITIATIVES | |

| | | | |

| | |4.25 | |

| | |Create a district curriculum committee |• Administrative PLP to begin in January to |

| | |structure to strengthen the coordination of |plan revision of curriculum design. |

| | |cross discipline curriculum and to involve | |

| | |stakeholders outside district employees | |

| | | | |

| | |4.26 | |

| | |Revise the teacher evaluation instrument and | |

| | |establish specific handbooks and procedures to |• District committee is currently developing |

| | |assist school leaders in enhancing their |recommendations for revisions in the teacher |

| | |educational leadership capacity |evaluation process. |

| | | | |

| | |4.27 | |

| | |Continue to revise the school improvement plan | |

| | |process |• 2006-07 SIT plans reflect revisions in |

| | | |content and format. |

| | |4.28 | |

| | |Establish a district committee to review the | |

| | |practice of tracking/ability grouping to ensure|• Review of ALP planned for 2007-2008. |

| | |all students are given the appropriate level of|• Changes made to high school course offerings |

| | |instruction and that their academic needs are |to eliminate lower level classes that were seen|

| | |being met within the least restrictive |as barriers to enrollment in higher-level |

| | |environment |courses. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download