Eastern Carver County Schools: Refining supports for students at risk

District Management Council

Opportunities for Special Education

1. Consider defining a clear and comprehensive approach to student support that more fully
integrates general education, special education, and other supports for at risk learners,
including English language learners.
a. More fully integrate general education, special education, and other supports.
i. iTEAM/Multi-tiered approach framework for instruction within personalized
learning
 Clarifying interventions used in iTEAM and alignment of approaches
ii. District leaders/department collaboration-formalization of this structure
 Regularly schedule planning by joint team of district leaders
 Allow for communication and coordination between
departments/across levels & schools, and share with staff
services/instructional supports available
iii. School level: dedicated time to plan for co-teaching in content areas
 Share with staff co-teaching models/framework (articles, books,
research), where is this currently happening and how to push past
scheduling concepts
b. Examine and discuss variation in support models across schools to determine which
differences are desired and intentional, and which may be beneficial to align.
i. Elementary: curriculum mapping to align practices and services
ii. Elementary: Review Resource models-general pull-out time spent/team
teaching. Is there a general practice of serviced times?
iii. Middle: Intentional targeting of skills with alternative instruction (math labs)
iv. Middle: Defining practices for students who can access read 180
v. Middle: provide opportunities for students to add extra time in their day to
complete work, but need skill teaching continued in reading and math areas
vi. Review overall variation patterns and determine intentionality of services
c. Determine extent of student needs and the necessary staffing, then determine how to
fund these efforts.
i. Identify total number of students in read of reading or math support (regardless
of IEP)
ii. Calculate amount of support needed based on comprehensive student support
model-review supports district wide and determine what models are working
and how to best support students.
iii. Determine the need, determine staffing costs, then how to fund (i.e general
fund, specific funding sources, grants)-keep in mind support models will stay the
same but various funding sources may fluctuate year to year.
 How tricky can this become? Talk with Kerri and accounting to
determine sources and viability. Bigger questions-is this good for
students? Whose needs are we satisfying/is it worth constant switching
of funding sources?
2. Ensure students who struggle are more consistently provided with extra time via scheduled
school-day supports
a. Elementary Reading:
i. Note-at least 30 minutes a day of additional reading instruction is typically
required for struggling readers
ii. Service delivery-careful planning/scheduling to ensure reading intervention is
over and above typical 90 min core-reiterate with principals, supervisors,
coordinators, specialized staff. Questions to ask are students receiving core
instruction? Intervention supplements are not core instruction
iii. Students should receive targeted, non-optional additional time tied to core
instruction-while extended opportunities include math, reading, life skills,
homework help
b. Secondary math and ELA:
i. Extra instruction time for struggling students increases at this level, typically an
extra hour a day to make up lost years
ii. Practice-pre-teaching materials, re-teach days lesson, address missing
foundational skills-Students would benefit from a “double dose” support model
iii. Middle: review struggling learner supports-does slower pace mean increase
instruction? Or pre-teaching material and focus on reviewing foundational skills-
focus on specific skills
iv. High school: review flexibly grouping and supports offered.
v. Referral process: how do students get intentionally referred/placed for
intervention at each level?
vi. Align standards passed interventions/instruction-technical task vs. moral
imperative?
vii. Sample Schedule: Review with secondary/elementary schedules-work to
present updated examples consistent with district

viii.
ix. Suggestions: possible to schedule during electives or foreign language-state
requirements?
 x. Co-teaching cautions: can have increased staffing costs, avg 20%, achievement
may not be linked, EL and sped teachers can be seen as classroom aide. Hattie:
.19 effect size
 LRE-if best practice to have students within core instruction how do we
best support range of behaviors-could we incorporate teacher as small
group (independent from instructor) to deliver skill instructions.
c. Ensure all student who struggle are provided with extra instructional time each day
d. Sped service delivery guide- to include group size #4
3. Ensure content-strong teachers consistently support all students.
a. Elementary reading instruction:
i. Ideas: chart sped teachers w/ licenses-approach PD in selected areas to
strengthen skills/ promote dual licensed staff-add to coordinator tasks at the
beginning of the year.
ii. Specialized staff: expertise areas: 1. Content-area, 2. Pedagogical, 3.
Social/Emotional, 4. IEP Management
iii. Paraprofessionals: reported as 54% 1:1 student support, how do we redefine
roles/responsibilities?
 PD opportunities for para’s-focus on release to independence (always
view as tying to work ourselves out of a job)-discussion of transition to
the community mindset
 Question: in resource-where are the para’s supporting students? Is this
truly an individual setting or is it support within core instruction and
general education teacher delivering instruction.
b. Math and English at the secondary level
i. Recommended: Content expertise of teacher is vital: however Hattie research
shows .09 effect size.
 Should review in PD knowledge and skills/teacher evaluation model.
What data can be used to help measure effects?
c. Benchmarking analysis: recommendation by DMC-having para professionals support
students with severe needs and not mild to moderate
i. Instead-review program service delivery and increase paras spending more time
within the week in gen. ed. If reviewed service delivery-less needed within
special education setting.
d. Sped opportunities: define role of para/ service delivery model guidelines/group size
requirements
4. Consider increasing the amount of time that related services staff, specifically speech clinicians
and occupational therapists, sped with students, while also closely managing group size though
thoughtful scheduling.
a. Speech Pathologists:
i. Review % of time spent with students and serviced numbers.
ii. Review group size of instruction/ 55% serviced 1:1 (differentiate and Personalize
instruction for creative groupings)-intentional scheduling of students with like
needs
 iii. ASHA research: ratios 2:1 if severe disabilities, 3:1 if more typical needs, warns
against groups greater than 5
b. Occupational Therapists:
i. Notes: avg. provides less than 2 days of service to students
ii. Review group sizes and serviced models-what other services are OT’s providing
taking away from instruction?
c. Physical therapists:
i. Notes: 29% spent with students- Role differences-consultative model vs. direct
services
d. District benchmarking analysis: DMC recommendations to repurpose groupings/if
speech spent 75% of time with students could repurpose nearly $900,000, but didn’t
take into consideration rate of reimbursement
e. Paperwork efficiency recommendations: Laptops, fillable forms, notes electronically,
monitoring outcomes, streamline agenda’s, drafts ahead of time-evals, map out
required meetings throughout calendar, service delivery, groupings
i. Best practices list: back to school/content areas of focus?
5. Consider providing more social-emotional support to students by better leveraging the district’s
existing resources.
a. Psychologists
i. Define roles and responsibilities: currently used as due process-what does scope
of practice look like, intentionality of roles.
ii. Continue to find ways to streamline evaluation process.-Review monitoring data
from the state and example IEP’s provided.
b. Social workers
i. Review paperwork/meeting requirements of social workers-considered an add-
on service.
ii. Review service delivery, find out Social worker *-who spend 0% with students.
iii. What is the scope of their practice within the school setting?
c. Counselor
i. Define counselor role across elem, mid, HS: Elem more similar to social workers,
HS more administrative practices
ii. Recommended to limit amount of duties to take on, but who would be
reassigned those jobs?
iii. HS: determine target times with students, then examine variation of time to
determine intentionality
d. Mental Health roles/responsibilities
e. DMC suggestions: review and manage responsibilities for school psych, social work, and
counselors-what other supports to be responsive to teachers concerns
f. Social skills pedagogy/skills instruction through special education teachers/
g. Could EIS be repurposed to for additional services or LCTS-and inpatient treatment?