Scranton School District sees sharp rise in special-education enrollment; officials outline identification, evaluation steps

Angenette, the Scranton School District director of student services for special education, told the school board that the district has nearly doubled its special-education rosters and teacher counts over the last five school years and is ‘‘bulging at the seams’’ as early-intervention students transition into kindergarten.

The presentation outlined why the numbers are rising, how students are evaluated, and what the district is doing to respond. Board members were given district-level counts, comparisons with state and national prevalence rates, and details on local evaluation protocols.

District context and why it matters

Angenette said the district’s special-education program has expanded rapidly: she reported roughly 160 early-intervention children transitioning into kindergarten and that the department had grown from about 23 special-education classes to the mid-40s this summer, with a later comment putting the first-day count at 47 classes. She said staff efforts include stretching related-service caseloads for speech, occupational and physical therapy and relying on part-time contracted psychologists to meet demand.

‘‘Looking at the data, we have almost doubled our special ed, rosters and our teachers,’’ Angenette said, adding that supervisor Maggie Lotney had an unusually high number of IEPs completed for July and August.

How students are identified and legal framework

Sandy Lamanna, a long-time contracted school psychologist, told the board the district follows federal and state eligibility criteria. ‘‘If you look at it, in 1975, the federal government enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Act,’’ Lamanna said, referring to IDEA as the basis for entitlement to a free appropriate public education for children ages 3–21. She also cited Pennsylvania Chapter 14 as the state framework that districts must meet when documenting eligibility.

Lamanna reviewed the 13 disability classifications used for special education and said Pennsylvania does not use the developmental-delay category, which can complicate classification for some children transitioning into kindergarten.

National and local trends in autism and other classifications

Lamanna cited national data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including a network-average prevalence she summarized as ‘‘the prevalence rate among children 8 years of age was 1 in every 31 children in the network’’ and noted that prevalence varies between surveillance networks largely because of differences in identification and evaluation practices. She said Pennsylvania’s surveillance data show higher identification rates than the national average and that Scranton’s autism share—about 15.8 percent of its special-education population—exceeds both the national (about 13 percent) and state averages (about 13.8 percent), as presented to the board.

Lamanna and Angenette described common local patterns: specific learning disability remains the largest classification locally and nationally (about one-third of special-education students nationally), followed by speech/language needs and other health impairment (which commonly includes ADHD). They emphasized that rises in identification reflect a combination of better awareness, improved referrals and more comprehensive evaluation tools rather than a single cause.

Diagnostic protocols and school practice

Lamanna described the district’s evaluation process: review of records, cognitive and achievement measures where possible, parent and teacher interviews, behavior and social-emotional assessments, and consideration of response to interventions through MTSS (multi-tiered system of supports). She said the district accepts outside diagnoses but still conducts its own comprehensive evaluations to determine current educational needs and service levels.

Lamanna noted practical constraints: the district currently has one full-time psychologist, several long-term contracted psychologists, and additional part-time examiners who test outside regular hours. She said some incoming children are not able to complete formal standardized testing, so assessments can rely more heavily on observation, parent input and records review.

Questions, next steps and district supports

Board members asked what the district can do differently. Angenette and Lamanna described existing work with regional partners and professional-development efforts: the district is in its second year of an autism initiative with PaTTAN (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network), has advanced MTSS work in elementary schools, and plans targeted literacy and teacher training supported in part by Title II funds. Lamanna said the district will share the PowerPoint and referenced documents with the board for further review and follow-up.

Ending

Board members thanked Lamanna and Angenette for the overview and said the presentation illuminated local staffing and facility implications as the district plans for the school year. The district provided comparative prevalence figures and pledged to deliver the materials and sources Lamanna cited, including the CDC summary and state surveillance information.