Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special‑education director outlines program evaluation and flags state data errors on disability types
Summary
The district's special‑education director told the School Committee he will start a program evaluation focused on autism and related services, described discrepancies in state RADAR disability‑type reporting, and said internal data show higher autism‑identification rates than some public portals indicated.
Duxbury’s new special‑education assessment and program evaluation drew sustained committee discussion as the district seeks to align identification, services, and budget planning.
The director presenting the review — addressed in the meeting as BJ — said the district will conduct an autism‑focused program evaluation this year that includes on‑site observations, record reviews, IEP reviews, parent focus groups and interviews with teachers and psychologists. "An evaluation is being planned currently with the consultation of the CPAC board... and it will happen this year," BJ said.
BJ told the committee that discrepancies in the state RADAR reporting had produced misleading public figures. He said internal data show 465 students in the district receive special‑education services (about 17.3% of enrollment) and that 57 students had autism listed as a primary disability, or about 12.3% of the special‑education population; when secondary or tertiary disability designations are included that figure rises to about 15.5%.
"There were definitely some errors in that," BJ said of the RADAR portal, and the district has asked the state team to correct the records. He described a hidden reporting setting that had excluded some active IEPs from state feeds and said the 2022–24 apparent jump in RADAR percentages was a correction of that setting rather than an actual caseload surge.
The director also reviewed staffing and caseload metrics and said Duxbury’s co‑teaching model and related‑service provider loads remain a focus. He recommended clearer alignment of IEP goals to grade‑level expectations and more consistent use of evidence‑based specially designed instruction to support inclusion. He flagged potential budget drivers — particularly out‑of‑district tuition and transportation for students with highly specialized needs — while saying many programming adjustments can be made through redeploying existing resources and targeted professional development.
Committee members asked for parent outreach, clearer definitions of the data being published externally, and a timeline for the program evaluation. BJ said he would circulate a memo clarifying eligibility and medical versus educational classification practices and return with a program‑evaluation scope and budget implications.
