Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sharyland ISD receives special-education program evaluation; consultant outlines four priority areas for improvement
Summary
An external evaluation found strengths in campus-level support and compliance but recommended clearer district vision, a handbook, stronger MTSS implementation, inclusive practices, and capacity building. The district plans an action plan with the consultant.
Dr. Cindy Short, a consultant with Stetson and Associates Consulting Group, presented the results of a program evaluation of special education services in Sharyland Independent School District, saying the review’s purpose was “to look at supporting students with disabilities here and improving outcomes.”
The evaluation, conducted with classroom observations, surveys and focus groups, found that about 10.5% of students in the district receive special education services, a rate the consultant said is lower than state averages. Dr. Short said survey response rates were about 40% for instructional staff and about 15% for parents. She reported that three of four end-of-course exams met standards while English I and II did not, and that graduation rates for students receiving special education services were higher than the state’s.
Dr. Short told the board that the review examined “leadership, instruction, staffing, capacity building, as well as family engagement.” She identified four priority areas for district action: (1) codify a clear, consistently communicated vision and produce a handbook that details day-to-day procedures; (2) strengthen multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) so they function as intervention systems rather than primarily referral pathways to special education; (3) implement quality inclusive practices across the continuum of service delivery so placement is determined by student needs rather than available programs; and (4) develop systematic capacity-building (professional development) so teachers and paraprofessionals have consistent training in behavior strategies, differentiated instruction and specially designed instruction.
Shortcomings the consultant cited included uneven implementation of differentiated instruction (she said differentiated content was observed in only 32% of visited classrooms), inconsistent MTSS practices, and perceptions among some staff that students with disabilities are being pulled out of general classrooms without clear specially designed instruction. Short also noted a perception gap: while 80% of faculty and 84% of parents said they felt supported by campus principals, about 66.8% of respondents reported they did not feel supported by the district-level special education department.
Board members and administrators asked for clarifications on methodology and coverage. Board member David Keith asked whether paraprofessionals were interviewed; Short said she did not interview paraprofessionals but had interviewed principals, general and special education teachers, school psychologists, speech-language pathologists and related-services staff. Short said she observed roughly 40 classrooms and conducted 11 focus groups involving about 85 staff members as well as a parent focus group.
Superintendent Dr. Howard told the board the district would share the evaluation broadly with special education families and would work with Stetson and Associates to develop an action plan. Dr. Howard said the firm would return to the district to assist in writing the action plan and that administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals and itinerant staff would be asked to serve on a committee to implement recommendations.
Board members praised campus staff for the day-to-day support parents reported. Dr. Short will return next month to work on the action plan with district staff and stakeholders.
The presentation and board discussion did not include a formal vote; the district indicated next steps will be an internally developed action plan with consultant support.
