State education officials outline special-education workload study; advocates press for earlier parent and student input
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
State Education Department and AIR researchers described a statewide workload analysis of special-education staff — including contract review, practitioner panels, surveys and focus groups — with a report due July 1; advocates argued student and parent voices should be integrated earlier in the process.
State Education Department staff and outside researchers told a legislative subcommittee they have launched a statewide workload analysis aimed at understanding how special-education duties are assigned and how that affects service delivery.
“Bridal Klimkiewicz, Special Education Division Director, said the work now under way includes a contract review of about 30 districts, practitioner panels, a statewide survey and AIR-facilitated focus groups,” the subcommittee was told. Klimkiewicz said the SERC contract was amended to begin work promptly and that the team is “on track to have the report completed by July 1 and want to provide you with regular updates.”
Dr. Gilmore of the American Institutes for Research (AIR), who is leading research work through AIR’s federally funded SPARC Center, said the project uses district longitudinal data and mixed methods to identify staffing challenges and to test policy options. “With the very short timeline, we’re really focusing on getting data that’s gonna lead to solutions,” she said.
The study’s components are: (1) a document analysis of bargaining agreements in roughly 30 districts to spot existing workload language; (2) practitioner panels with special-education teachers, speech-language pathologists, school psychologists and social workers; (3) statewide survey outreach to practitioners who cannot attend panels; and (4) focus groups, facilitated by AIR, that include administrators as well as direct-service staff.
Subcommittee members and outside advocates pressed for clearer inclusion of parents and students. John, who identified himself as an attorney and president of Special Education Equity for Kids of Connecticut, said delaying family and student voice until after the model is drafted risks producing recommendations that fit district capacity rather than student need. “What is more important from our perspective is...the people who are driving the decision making process know how much bandwidth they have and fit the student into that bandwidth rather than fitting the bandwidth into the student’s needs,” he said.
Klimkiewicz and Dr. Gilmore acknowledged that family and student perspectives matter for evaluating outcomes and noted existing structures the state can tap, including student advisory groups convened by SERC and outreach supported by the Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center. Gilmore said student and parent input is especially useful for assessing whether proposed changes actually improve outcomes once options or pilot implementations are available.
Researchers said they will combine quantitative survey data with open-ended responses; they also plan an open call for superintendents and special-education directors and will use nominations to populate practitioner panels while trying to ensure geographic and contextual representation.
The subcommittee did not vote on any measures at the meeting. Members asked SDE and AIR to return with monthly updates as the study proceeds and to coordinate with other subcommittees that are examining related topics.
The work’s next visible milestone is the July 1 target for the study report, and the subcommittee plans to reconvene next month to continue oversight and refine recommendations.