Director of Special Education presents data showing rising special‑education enrollment in Fredonia

Kristen Farrell, the district’s director of special education, delivered the board’s annual special‑education overview on Feb. 24, presenting year‑to‑date figures she compiled using Feb. 17 data. "As of that date, we had 276 school age special education students, 56 preschool special education students, and 89 students with a 504 plan," she said, and added the district’s school‑age special‑education rate was 18 percent.

Farrell said the district is seeing category increases in autism, intellectual disability and other health impairment (which she reported rose from 49 to 67) and in speech‑language needs (reported up from 51 to 61). She noted a 350 percent increase over six years in direct parent referrals to the Committee on Special Education (from 4 to 18) and an uptick in students transferring into the district with existing IEPs.

"Special education is a legally mandated function of public education that touches nearly every part of our school system," Farrell said, framing the presentation around the New York State Education Department’s Blueprint for Special Education. She described the district’s placement pattern: about 89 percent of school‑age special‑education students receive services in district buildings; roughly 6 percent attend BOCES special‑education programs; a small number attend more specialized out‑of‑district programs or are homeschooled.

Farrell described related services staffing and workload, saying the district currently has 27 special‑education teachers, 19 related‑services staff and a posted opening for a 0.5 FTE speech therapist. She estimated an average caseload of about 31.25 students per in‑district therapist and said that workload — which includes direct minutes, preparation, documentation and collaboration with teachers and families — is the district’s focus rather than caseload alone.

To manage therapist time the district has implemented a "3‑1" service model this year: three weeks of scheduled direct services followed by one week dedicated to indirect work such as paperwork, evaluation and coordination. Farrell said the model "helps us be cognizant of the real factors of work" but that the three consecutive direct weeks can create very full therapy schedules and may not be sustainable without additional support staff.

Board members asked clarifying questions. One asked whether transfers refer to students who moved into the district; Farrell said they do. Asked whether ADHD is categorized under "other health impairment," Farrell confirmed that it typically is. On early intervention, Farrell said staffing shortages have curtailed the district’s ability to provide preventative improvement groups (services delivered before a formal IEP or 504 is needed), which in the past helped close gaps in speech, OT and PT before needs escalated.

Farrell also summarized compliance work tied to state performance plan indicators and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), saying the district had previously been cited for a disproportionate dropout rate among students with disabilities (indicator 2) but had moved out of targeted‑skills status after submitting improvements and outcomes to the state. This year the district will report on indicator 8 (parent involvement surveys) and next year on indicator 11 (timeliness of evaluation and IEP development).

Board members and staff thanked Farrell and her team for the presentation and praised efforts to expand opportunities such as credit‑bearing 15:1 classes at the high school and CDOS credential pathways. Farrell said the district is "very aware" of state limits for Alternate Assessment designation (she noted districts should not exceed 1 percent of students designated for the New York State Alternate Assessment) and described training and BOCES support the district has used to address that issue.

The presentation closed with Farrell noting a 69 percent rise over nine years in the district’s special‑education population (she reported 421 students total with an IEP or 504 plan, which she described as roughly 25 percent of the student population), and offering to follow up with benchmarking data comparing the district’s in‑building service rate to peer districts.