Arlington Special Education PTA
Monthly Meeting and Annual Superintendent Chat
December 12, 2019
6:30 – 9:00 p.m.
APS Syphax Building, Rooms 452/454
2110 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22204
I. Student Presentations
- Best Buddies
Best Buddies leaders from Yorktown High School and Washington-Liberty High School discussed their experiences at the Best Buddies leadership conference this past summer. After the panel, a number of them were planning to attend the United Sound concert. United Sound consists of students with disabilities who have been paired with typical students to learn to play musical instruments. A parent expressed an interest in starting a Best Buddies chapter at HB Woodlawn. One of the panelists was aware of a unified basketball team with the Shriver program. Janna has more info about starting Best Buddies programs at other schools.
- Sarah Cornett
Sarah Cornett is a student in the PEP program. She gave a Power Point presentation which she has used at her IEP meetings, which addresses her likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, education, experience, and goals. She is committed to spreading awareness of advocacy in the public school system.
Her teacher Anne Vincent is working on a webinar for VA teachers to illustrate the importance of self-advocacy of students with disabilities. Students can make their own videos that they can present at IEP meetings to address things like their strengths and weaknesses and educational goals. A couple examples of student videos that have been used at IEP meetings were shown.
II. Minutes
The October meeting’s minutes were approved. The November meeting consisted of the school board discussion of the PCG program evaluation, so there were no minutes to present and approve for that month.
III. President’s Report
While the Phantom Ball fell short of its fundraising goal, the online auction raised $11,000.
Save the date for the summer activities fair scheduled for January 25, 2020 from 2-4 at the Walter Reed Community Center for students of all ages/abilities.
IV. Q&As with Dr. Cintia Johnson, Interim Superintendent for APS, Dr. Kelly Krug, Supervisor of ATSS, and Ms. Heather Rothenbuescher, Supervisor of Special Education
Dr. Johnson, Dr. Krug, and Ms. Rothenbuescher provided brief introductory remarks and background about their experiences with APS. The following questions were discussed (please note that they are included in the minutes in their submitted form, but their presentation was slightly modified during the Q&A session):
1. As Interim Superintendent, what changes have you made, or will you be making, to ensure more consistency of Special Education identification and service implementation across all Arlington schools?
Dr. Johnson stated that APS is trying to take steps to ensure consistency and continuity and is currently looking at the information that it has to determine what needs to be improved and what works for next steps. Input from various sources – e.g., the program evaluation, advisory groups, students, and other data — helps the county identify where the gaps are in opportunity.
Dr. Krug referenced the Student Support Manual as being a tool for ensuring consistency because expectations and processes are all documented in one place.
Ms. Rothenbuescher noted that the role of Student Support Coordinators is contributing to greater consistency across APS and helps to streamline processes for more effective and efficient services.
2. How to address accountability?
At the School Board work session on the Program Evaluation for Students with Disabilities and Those Requiring Intervention, one of the many themes that arose was making APS a “School System” versus a “system of schools” – how do you plan to approach this especially in terms of accountability? How will you make school principals and LEA’s accountable to follow APS guidelines? How will you make school principals and LEA’s stay in compliance with the Federal and State education laws?
Submission 1 – What are your immediate plans for implementing the recommendations from the PCG SPED Evaluation? Have you established any time frames and deadlines for accomplishing specific activities? Who will be responsible for making sure that action planning is completed and actionable steps can begin?
Submission 2 – What will you do to ensure recommendations from the 2019 program evaluation move forward, especially around inclusion and accountability?]
Dr. Johnson emphasized the importance of being clear on expectations in areas of accountability, as well as building capacity. She cited Student Support Coordinators as a good example; not only do they have the expertise but they also have the ability to monitor and work in the schools and to report back to the central office.
Dr. Johnson referenced the program evaluation in addressing accountability and is committed to APS responding strategically to the recommendations. She understands the need to shift away from school autonomy and being clear on expectations, building capacity in more efficient/effective ways (through staffing and materials), and looking at delivery models and whether they are being implemented with fidelity. She mentioned that the division of responsibilities between Dr. Krug and Ms. Rothenbuescher (as opposed to the previous practice of having the Director of Special Education carry out both sets of responsibilities) has been more effective and efficient and confirmed that this model will continue.
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that APS is working on a 5 year plan to implement the recommendations from the program evaluation and that they are hoping to continue to work with PCG. Dr. Krug would like to have an accountability system in place to ensure that these recommendations are being implemented. The PCG program evaluation is available on the APS website, as well as the ASEAC website.
3. How will APS tackle inclusion?
According to Dr. Krug, PCG is back on-site to lay out the framework for inclusion and what that entails for inclusive practices for teachers. First, there needs to be a common language and understanding as part of putting the right structure in place. Secondly, the barriers to inclusion need to be identified as well as a needs analysis. On the professional learning side, immediate feedback makes a big difference (via coaching). The right knowledge, tools, and proof of student success is what will bring about effective inclusion.
4. Do you have any plans for implementing Co-teaching across APS? If so, what are they?
Dr. Krug stated that co-teaching is being addressed as part of the 5 year plan. Co-teaching is not the same as inclusion. APS has some good models in place but needs to build on them and help other schools capitalize on that. It is important to ensure that teachers can collaborate and have common time to plan. Staffing, resources, and professional learning are all key factors. Ms. Rothenbuescher added that they are still analyzing what is needed to make co-teaching work.
Dr. Johnson stated that accountability is also an important piece; expectations need to be clear. Inclusion is a good example, where they set a goal at the beginning of the year of percentage of 80% and then are continuing to look at data to help determine what steps are being done to move in that direction.
5. Submission 1 – How has the DOJ settlement changed APS-wide practices regarding SWDs who are also English Learners? Please give detailed answers. In your opinion, what more needs to be done?
Submission 2 – In your opinion, how do the recent Program Evaluations for English Learners and Special Education compare with one another? What opportunities do you see for these offices to work together in their efforts to address various recommendations going forward? Please provide specific examples.
Dr. Johnson has been involved in the discussions with DOJ and responded that it is an ongoing process. The DOJ settlement agreement provides for a 1-3 year plan, and recommendations have been made in program evaluations for special ed students as well as for ELL students. APS is working on aligning its response to the requirements and recommendations raised under these multiple documents.
Dr. Krug stated that the immediate priority is to provide translation of the IEP and 504 plan in final form in Amharic, Mongolian, and Arabic, and next year, they will tackle Spanish. She recognized that certain instructional blocks need language acquisition support, as well as specially designed support. Dr. Krug mentioned that when needed, the IEP meeting will have a translator present, and once the IEP finalized, it will be translated.
Ms. Rothenbuescher reiterated Dr. Johnson’s earlier point that the action plans are aligned between all 3 documents.
6. As highlighted by the recent Program Evaluation there remains measurable disparities in APS especially regarding race and socio-economic status when it comes to eligibility, setting/placement decisions, and student outcomes for SWD’s. What are you doing as Interim Superintendent to bring outliers like these closer to the average? For example, are there any reviews of the IEP and 504 determinations by those outside of the outlier schools, or is additional training put into place for staff handling eligibility assessments? In your opinion, what else should be done?
Dr. Krug stated that the Office of Special Education is partnering with the Office of Student Services to ensure that students are being identified without being over-identified. There are joint meetings involving social workers, psychologists, and the Support Services Coordinator to consider data that is being used for determining eligibility. VDOE is also being consulted on eligibility determinations, which Ms. Rothenbuescher confirmed. They are also working with the English Language office to determine research practices and assessments with English Language Learners.
7. What are 3 concrete steps you can take to ensure that core/general education teachers have common planning time with Special Education teachers and Special Education assistants? A key challenge to ensuring this planning time is the Master Schedule that often prevents important joint planning from occurring.
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that when the special education teacher serves students at different grade levels, it would be a challenge for the special education teacher to participate in common planning since that teacher would tend to miss common planning time. The Office of Special Education is also looking at other barriers and would like to give teachers a framework for how common planning time should look like (exchange/coordination of expertise)
8. Is it ever ok to segregate students by race, ability, gender, language, or other characteristic for the majority of the school day? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please explain why and under what circumstances you believe segregation is justified.
Dr. Johnson stated that instruction is based on needs of students (as determined by data) – i.e., the needs of a particular student could drive flexible grouping so that if a student is struggling with math, the student should be clustered with students who also need support. The tiered system of support allows for co-teaching which gives students the support that they need. The IEP ultimately drives and guides the decisions that need to be made for the student.
Dr. Krug added that all students should be with their peers to the extent possible, but there are times where students require a smaller/more structured setting. The data should tell you whether the school is providing what the student needs to meet goals.
9. Submission 1 – What is APS doing to improve communication between schools and Transportation regarding student requirements? This question was asked last year but unfortunately we are still getting reports that important medical and behavioral information about students is not making its way to drivers and attendants on buses. Please give details about strides being made between the Offices of Special Education and Transportation to help communicate critical student needs.
Submission 2 – School bus drivers are related service providers under IDEA, however they are not being asked to follow students’ IEPs. What will you do as Superintendent to hold bus drivers accountable as related service providers?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that APS is working on trying to improve this. There are several different working groups targeting different populations and areas of transportation, and they are working to make sure that the Transportation Office gets the information that they need. She acknowledged the need for a more global set of training for transportation.
Dr. Krug stated that getting critical information on students to drivers/aides is still a work in progress, but they recognize that they have to address this need. Ms. Rothenbuescher added that it can be a dynamic situation where student needs change over year, so it is necessary that those changes are being communicated as well.
10. Submission 1 – What training, background, and experience is needed for school-level Behavior Coaches?
What happens when a student with an IEP commits an offense such as assault on a fellow student or a teacher? What discipline action is taken before the manifestation and determination process can occur? Are there consistent practices within the district?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that the behavior specialists: 1) should have instructional background/experience in classroom and should have an understanding of how to manage class and individual interventions; 2) be able to identify functions and match them with interventions; and 3) have the ability to build relationships. In other words, the behavior specialist needs to understand the problem and address it through building relationships with team.
Dr. Johnson stated that there are proactive measures that should be taken which need to be consistent across all schools. At the first level, the systems that are in place should create the right environment in schools to make students feel empowered and set them up for success. This includes PBIS and responsive classroom. APS needs to try to have more training in restorative practices, but they would start with limited sites before going systemwide.
Dr. Krug added that when tier 1 isn’t working, there are 2 behavior specialists, as well as 4 low intervention specialists who work out of the Office of Special Education as additional resources.
11. Submission 2 – Do all schools have staff trained in best practices for de-escalation strategies and crisis prevention? How is it determined who is trained?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that while there is training in this area, participation may be voluntary or mandatory, depending upon the situation. However, staff always have the opportunity to get additional training.
12. How will the new Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer interact with the Office of Special Education, if at all? There seems to be an opportunity here, particularly where we’re seeing over-identification with EL students and under-identification for affluent white families.
Dr. Johnson reported that APS is in the process of wrapping up its candidate search for this position. APS may need to do an audit when this person comes in to determine whether there are issues around equity. There needs to be a common understanding of equity and inclusion (per the strategic plan), and the data from the program evaluation and other sources within the system can help determine where these concepts can apply. The Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer will also need to help develop and review a new equity policy and interface with various stakeholders – e.g., different departments and groups.
APS’ goal is to have someone in this position by Jan. 2020, and they appear to be on target. APS is working on an action plan to address the issues that Dr. Johnson identified, and addressing the recommendations from the ELL and special education evaluations are clearly priorities.
13. Submission 1 – Why are all general education teachers required to take courses for “gifted services” but not for special education services? This question was also asked last year and remains an issue. What must have professional development trainings will be required for teachers and paraprofessionals beginning this coming fall?
Submission 2 – What is being done to train assistants in inclusion supports?
Submission 3 – What basic special education professional development do you feel that all school staff should have as a minimum? How often should they need this training refreshed?
Submission 4 – What specific steps can be taken before this coming fall to better streamline the current Professional Learning Framework so that expectations for “non-negotiable” professional development are clearly made? Can you commit to making these professional development opportunities available to all special education paraprofessionals?
Dr. Krug stated that the gifted services training is a state requirement, whereas the state does not require special education training. While it would be good for teachers to have knowledge on inclusion, literacy, numeracy, social/emotional wellbeing, APS needs to ensure that its “must-dos” are manageable, meaningful, implementable, and sustainable.
14. Submission 1 – How will APS minimize the impact of continued boundary changes on our special education county-wide programs especially when these students arguably need consistency the most?
Submission 2 – When weighing school boundary decisions, how are SWD factored into the equation?
Submission 3 – Do you anticipate great impact on our elementary-age SWD with the current elementary school boundary discussions? Why or why not?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that they would want to keep countywide programs with the schools where the countywide program is housed, so if a school is changing buildings, the countywide program would move with that school. There needs to be more consistency with feeder patterns so that there is continuity over the years, as students make their way from elementary school to middle school.
15. Submission 1 – What is the ratio of teacher/aides/students in self-contained classes? Is this consistent within the district?’
How many students can be left alone with one assistant?
What is being done to ensure that special education teachers have appropriate, manageable caseloads?
Submission 2 – Our school’s speech therapist is managing an unbelievably large caseload. What are the current maximums for SLP’s, OT’s, PT’s, and other itinerate county staff? Are these caseloads currently equitable across APS? How can APS better support our related-service providers going forward?
Dr. Krug stated that while there are set ratios in specialized programs, there are none for non-categorical programs. However, she acknowledged that it is worth considering whether a set ratio is needed for non-categorical programs.
As to how many students can be left alone with 1 assistant, Dr. Krug stated that there is no set policy; they would have to look at the student’s needs – e.g., for a safety need, they would want at least 2 adults. Ms. Rothenbuescher added that age and personal needs are factors as well.
Dr. Krug stated that they look at hours/location of hours to help teachers manage their caseloads. Hours can be distributed over different teachers/specialists. APS staffs better than what the state recommends for related service providers, but she recognizes that providers have many students assigned to them, which can still be a challenge.
16. When school and parents disagree on placement, what negotiation process is in place? Is this consistent across the district?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that there is a special ed review committee which provides for internal mediation when parents/schools cannot agree. There are checklists to guide placement decisions which are used county-wide for consistency.
17. How will Standards-Based grading and report cards impact students with IEPs and 504s? How will SWDs who are taking VAAP or SOLs be assessed on the new Standards-Based report cards? As Interim Superintendent, do you feel that Standards-Based Report Cards should be extended beyond the Elementary-aged level? Why or why not?
Dr. Krug stated that they are still at the beginning stages for standards-based grading. There are a lot of positives under this — e.g., it looks at skills mastery/progress vs. just a letter grade and operates similarly to an IEP. APS is working towards standards based IEP goals, with an understanding that students are not always at grade level, so the focus would be what skills do they need to work on to get there? Report cards should reflect IEP/progress updates as well as standards in the classroom. Students who have alternatives to SOLs still have standards, which the teachers can still address, and parents should know.
18. Submission 1 – What procedures are currently in place to ensure that all students have access to communication as a human right?
Submission 2 – My daughter uses a speech generating device (SGD) to communicate but her school team seems to change every year and too often they are not trained on her communication program. This is a critical issue not only for my daughter but for other families across the county. How will APS respond to this issue going forward?
Dr. Krug stated that a workgroup on AAC has just begun. She affirmed that communication is a human right and that they are working on establishing goals for students in APS and are trying to make this part of 5 year plan for program evaluation. As part of that, they are trying to determine what training and procedures are needed.
Janna asked a follow-up question regarding training on each student’s specific device – are there any hopes for how training could look like? Dr. Krug recognized that the experts are speech and language pathologists and assistive technology specialists. APS needs to get them in the building and have them be based in schools. APS offers annual training on communication devices, but ongoing learning is necessary. They are continuing to stay on top of this – and trying to be proactive about what is needed.
19. As the new Student Support Process continues to be implemented across APS, the roles and responsibilities of the Student Support Coordinator (SSC) are becoming more clearly defined. Can you commit to equitably having an SSC at every school for the upcoming school year to continue these positive changes with fidelity? Why or why not?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that there needs to be 11-12 more positions to have a SSC at every school. This is not going to happen next year; they will have to roll out additional positions year after year and will rely on a gradual expansion.
Dr. Krug stated that it is a complex decision as to how schools got full-time and part-time SSCs. They look at various data points—e.g., new administrator who might need support, percentage of SWD, special programs, etc. They have tried to make the best decisions that they could to make it equitable.
Janna clarified that these existing SSC positions will continue to stay with their schools.
The following are additional questions from the audience.
1. Have there been changes in how 2E kids are supported?
Dr. Krug stated that the gifted resource teacher collaborates with the case carrier and classroom teacher in order to address the student’s gifted area to ensure that the student is challenged and supported at the same time. They need to ensure that there are multiple pathways to learning and the student has the ability to demonstrate their learning. The continued message is that it should be a collaborative effort to support the whole child. Ms. Rothenbuescher added that the gifted teacher is included in IEP teams and brings a valuable perspective.
2. Going back to a submitted question, what happens when a student with an IEP commits an offense such as assault on a fellow student or a teacher? What discipline action is taken before the manifestation and determination process can occur? Are there consistent practices within the district?
Dr. Johnson stated that there are consistent guidelines that are found in the student discipline policy and guidebook which address what steps are needed before the consequences of a violation are imposed. APS follows the state code for each of the violations. Depending on the school level, they are mindful of what would be appropriate for that individual student. The goal is to be proactive and consider the reason why a student misbehaves; having a better understanding will help to prevent these incidents. However, students with disabilities nevertheless can be disciplined. The goal is to empower the student, not punish them. There are clear guidelines in place for manifestation determination. Ms. Rothenbuescher added that where incidents involving students with disabilities are elevated, the Office of Special Education gets involved.
3. How would student-staff ratios be communicated?
Dr. Krug stated that this would be part of the planning factors guide and that they may put this in as a link to the student support manual. Any changes would be communicated via memo.
4. Is it mandatory for staff members with students using AAC to get trained?
Dr. Krug stated that sometimes this would be required.
5. Is APS open to having specialized program instructors (communication, DHH, MIPA) overseen by content instructors in the Office of Special Education?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that the Office of Special Education is always there to provide support and training; however, principal would be best to evaluate the specialized program instructors. Dr. Krug stated that they are always open to discussion.
6. The right coaching can help teenagers address anxiety; how can APS serve students with anxiety?
Dr. Krug stated that they are working with student services, administrators, counselors to help identify solutions. Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that they are looking at prevention; what can we do upfront to make sure that students don’t end up in a bad place?
Dr. Johnson added that this issue continues to evolve and that they are having conversations to bring more attention to mental health and addressing it as a priority. They are trying to figure out ways to have resources readily available, and she wants to engage with students as to what they think is helpful by providing them with the opportunity to come together to have a conversation and not be left feeling isolated. The goals are to identify as mental health as a priority, increase awareness, and provide education and training.
7. Transportation – where is APS regarding recommendations to include typical students on special routes – e.g., for students attending the HB Woodlawn and Shriver programs?
Ms. Rothenbuescher stated that this is part of their ongoing work with transportation but they do not have anything new to say about HB Woodlawn and Shriver. However, they are trying to work on reverse inclusion.
***
THESE NEXT QUESTIONS WERE WRITTEN DOWN BY AUDIENCE MEMBERS BUT WE RAN OUT OF TIME TO ASK/ANSWER THEM AT THE MEETING. THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES BELOW :
1. There are high school students who would be great role models for younger students. How can APS support students to do this? (For example: Thinking student panel at Dyslexia Conference.)
The high school Best Buddy teams may be able to mentor and train students at Middle and Elementary schools to develop vertical teams to strengthen mentorships and Best Buddy programs within neighborhood schools, which could increase inclusivity in the various neighborhoods across Arlington. OSE can look into what we can do to support that.
2. In discussions with the school board, it sounds like boundary changes will be more frequent. How can we support our students with disabilities, and their families with the transitions?
Whenever possible we will keep students with disabilities within their school communities and make sure they have connections with trusted adults and peers in new settings. With all transitions we work with teams to increase communication and plan for resources needed when a student arrives in a new school. Together as a group (OSE, SEPTA, and ASEAC) we can work on some recommendations to share with Lisa Stengal’s office.
3. Regarding #9 on Segregation – Who determines the needs of the student for “flexible grouping?” What data determines the needs?
This is a collaborative process depending on what the needs are. Teachers, administrators, psychologists, social workers, assistants, counselors, and parents work together to determine what is best for the student. Decisions should be based on data and what is best for the student.
4. Arlington is running out of space to build new schools, or add on to existing buildings, so we are seeing more multi-level buildings like Fleet & Reed. How can we ensure ADA is a priority when design and construction are complete? For example, playgrounds, the parking lot at Fleet is under the building and handicap access isn’t available without assistance (key card).
We learned a lot of lessons this year in regards to ADA design and the implications of architectural decisions on students. Moving forward we will work to engage the community more in building design discussions and work to keep student safety, sensory needs, and instruction in the forefront of our input to new buildings. This is something APS needs to keep at the forefront of all planning.
5. Will you ask the HB & Shriver principals to commit to bringing the two communities together?
Yes, we are working toward this goal.
6. Instructional studies – A lot of very capable students with learning disabilities need help developing study skills and executive functioning skills necessary to thrive in high school. What can APS do to help students develop these skills, as the current instructional studies model is failing students? (respectfully submitted by Sharon White – sharongwhite@gmail.com)
Our office is providing guidance and resources to Instructional Studies teachers in middle school and high school to maximize the impact of interventions to improve executive functioning skills, study skills and self-advocacy. OSE plans to provide new guidance and professional learning to all teachers who will be teaching Instructional Studies next year. Long term goals also include re-visiting the Program of Studies description and creating a system-wide policy on grading for instructional Studies.
7. Follow-up to Common Planning Time – Doesn’t the Master Schedule at each school determine whether there is adequate planning time? If so, how can principals get support to guarantee adequate planning time? (respectfully submitted by Keith Chanon – keithchanon@yahoo.com)
Our office is working toward a model where we can provide more coaching and support to schools as they develop master schedules. We are also working with PCG to analyze what resources are required to ensure schools have the staff they need to provide common planning time.
8. What mechanisms are in place to inform policy decisions beyond available data? There are considerable shortfalls in APS Data collection efforts, for example we basically only have SOLs to track trends, and that is not sufficient for SWD’s. Can we track long-term results from the measurement of IEP Goals? (respectfully submitted by Keith Chanon –
keithchanon@yahoo.com)
Yes, the Department of Teaching and Learning is working with schools and the Superintendent to look at a variety of data sources schools can use to in their 90 Day Progressive Plans to monitor student progress, growth and proficiency beyond just SOLs. OSE is also looking at ways to systematically monitor student mastery toward annual goals.
Leave a Reply