Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Lebanon presents special education program review; district above state average in least-restrictive placements
Summary
District staff reviewed a special education program review showing 71.4% of students with IEPs served in general education 80%+ of the day, highlighted gaps in out-of-district placements and participation in state assessments, and proposed multi-year training, communication and program changes.
District staff presented a multi-part special education program review that the administration said will feed into the district’s upcoming strategic plan and a cyclical state monitoring process.
"We are trying to educate students with disabilities to the maximum extent possible with their nondisabled peers," Dr. Schuman said, describing the district’s least-restrictive-environment goals and noting that 71.4% of students with individualized education programs were educated in regular classrooms for at least 80% of the school day. That figure, the presentation said, was 1.4 percentage points higher than the district’s last review and 9.8 points above the state average of 61.6% for the same indicator.
The review included a school-by-school program profile listing specialized classrooms and services (itinerant, supplemental, full-time supports) and an inventory of contracted providers used for out-of-district placements. The district identified one target area required by the state: students in “other settings” (out-of-district or private placements). The administration proposed actions including analyzing data for students in other settings, researching district-based transition programming for ages 18–22, and planning additional elementary specialized classrooms if enrollment and need warrant it.
The presentation said participation rates in state assessments for students with IEPs fell below the state target of 95% in several grades, with nonparticipation attributed primarily to parental opt-outs and some excused absences. The district proposed targeted steps to address assessment participation and academic proficiency gaps (notably math in grades 4 and 8), including educator and parent education at IEP meetings about test accommodations, department-level briefings, implementation of supplemental math curricula backed by evidence, and inclusion of special-education staff in the district’s curriculum review cycle.
Staff proposed a range of professional-development items tied to state requirements and local needs: autism-related training (including participation in Pattan’s autism initiative and applied behavior analysis training), positive behavior-support and crisis-prevention training for identified personnel, confidentiality and FERPA refreshers, paraprofessional onboarding refinement, Wilson reading-system certification, assistive-communication device training and IEP-writing refreshers. The review said the state special-education report — a compliance-oriented document filed every three years — is now posted for public review and comment; the presentation noted the state report does not include the fuller stakeholder feedback captured in the district’s program review and forthcoming strategic plan.
Board members asked about timing for adding specialized classrooms and staff; presenters said placement and program additions will be driven by student needs and enrollment, with capacity discussions to inform budget planning for 2025-26 and the multi-year strategic plan.
The administration described next steps as program and communication work items to be phased into the district’s strategic plan over multiple years; no formal policy or contract action on special-education programming was taken at the meeting.
