Consultants present initial special-education review to Portland board committee; focus on IEPs, data and program management

Portland Public Schools and consultants from District Management Group (DMG) presented an initial opportunity review of the district’s special‑education continuum to the board’s Curriculum and Policy Committee on Feb. 12, saying improvements to IEP development, data practices and specialized‑program management could produce the largest gains for students with disabilities.

The presentation, described by DMG director Tess Nicholson Powers as “the initial set of findings and recommendations,” summarized work DMG and district staff began in November and said next steps include advisory‑group planning on Feb. 28 and a board briefing in early March.

DMG described a multi‑method review. The consultants said they conducted 21 one‑on‑one interviews, 39 focus groups with 137 participants, family meetings in five languages with 56 participants, 30 classroom observations, a staff survey with 208 respondents, and a family survey with 254 respondents in four languages. They also ran a staff time study over a week in December and reviewed IEP records stored in the district’s Acuity data system.

Why it matters: DMG emphasized scale. “About 21% of students have an IEP and 4% have a 504 plan — that means roughly one in four students have a specialized plan,” Tess Nicholson Powers told the committee, pointing to the large population affected by any system changes.

Key findings and recommendations

- Data practices: DMG found the district’s Acuity entries were highly inconsistent and difficult to analyze. The consultants reported roughly 1,500 unique service names in the tool, 37% of entries left blank for who provides a service, and 28% of entries missing frequency. DMG recommended short‑term standardization of required data fields, clarification of non‑negotiable entries, and assignment of a data‑owner or team to manage ongoing quality and routine analysis. The consultants said better data is needed to monitor students’ placement in the least‑restrictive environment.

- IEP development and quality: DMG reported it used the Maine Department of Education audit (which reviewed 59 IEPs against 63 criteria) to focus on four high‑impact IEP components: accurate present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP), measurable goals, services aligned to goals, and clear least‑restrictive‑environment (LRE) rationale. Citing the Maine review, DMG said 44% of sampled IEPs appropriately identified gaps, a majority lacked some required documentation, 91% of services reviewed were aligned to goals, but only 61% of goals the auditors called measurable. DMG recommended targeted professional learning on writing PLAAFP statements and measurable goals, and an IEP review cycle (sampling IEPs periodically) potentially overseen by the district’s special‑education coordinator.

- Supports for mild‑to‑moderate needs: The consultants reported limited scheduled collaboration time between general education, special education and ESOL staff and suggested clarifying schedules to prioritize co‑planning and increase small‑group instruction capacity. Their time study showed special‑education teachers spent between 32% and 75% of their reported time directly with students (average ~57%), and some related‑service staff often work with one or two students rather than using small groups when appropriate.

- Specialized programming and program management: DMG mapped the district’s portfolio of specialized programs (about 200 students, ~3% of enrollment). They found program visions often existed but that implementation lacked clearly defined program management roles, decision authorities, and consistent staff development. Short‑term recommendations included documenting program goals and decision roles and updating staffing formulas; longer‑term work could include measurable program success criteria and structured stakeholder engagement.

- Family engagement: Families reported challenges with accessibility, inconsistent communication, advocacy burden, and concerns about staff training. DMG recommended expanding multilingual supports, clearer guidance for staff on family communication, and exploring a special‑education parent advisory council.

Questions and next steps

Committee members pressed for clarity on root causes. Board member Musira Ali asked if blank entries reflected lack of time or lack of training. Tess Nicholson Powers said the Acuity tool does not enforce required fields and staff asked for clearer guidance on which data elements are critical, saying the gap appeared largely to be capacity and tool setup rather than deliberate omission: “based currently on how the tool is actually set up, it may not flag in the system,” she said.

DMG and district leaders said the advisory group will meet Feb. 28 to set timelines and owners for specific recommendations; DMG expects to present an executive summary to the full board and to provide an implementation timeline that separates changes to be completed this year from those that will take one to three years. District staff said they have begun drafting budget implications in parallel with the work so the board can consider costs when the recommendations are finalized.

The consultants and district staff repeatedly framed the report as a starting point, not a final plan. “We are not done here with the findings,” the district presenter said; DMG described the presentation as an opportunity to gather committee feedback before finalizing near‑term actions.

Ending

DMG and district staff said they will use advisory‑group feedback to convert the high‑level findings into an actionable timeline with named owners and budget estimates. The committee set next milestone meetings for follow‑up planning and a March briefing to the board.