Teachers and union fault district's —push-in— model as board hears special-education presentation
Loading...
Summary
Teachers, union representatives and middle-school staff told the Carpinteria Unified School District board that a recent "push-in" model has reduced specialized instruction and coincided with higher D/F rates among students with IEPs; Special Education Director Carolyn Haines defended IEP-team decision-making and explained state LRE expectations.
Teachers, union representatives and parents pressed the Carpinteria Unified School District board on April 14 to revisit a shift to a "push-in" model for special-education support, saying it has reduced direct specialized instruction for students with Individualized Education Programs and contributed to higher D and F rates at Carpenter Middle School.
Kelly Vergier, a middle-school teacher and union representative, told the board she was not seeking to assign blame but to "bring attention to the academic needs of our middle school students" and invited board members to observe her science classroom over the next eight weeks. Several other teachers detailed classroom-level counts showing a high share of D/F marks among students with IEPs or English-learner status.
Union leadership and faculty representatives said the district's March presentation on Carpenter Middle School mischaracterized the district's "push-in" practices, describing the model as a large-scale change that in many classrooms results in special-education teachers providing brief, intermittent support (teachers said roughly 15 minutes, three times per week in some classes). A union spokesperson said those figures mean many special-education students now receive direct specialized math instruction for less than 20% of the weekly minutes they previously received.
At the board meeting, several teachers gave concrete class-level examples: one middle-school teacher reported that in his sections 50% to 100% of the students receiving D/F marks had special-education or limited-English backgrounds. "Those grades are a snapshot," teacher Chris Mastravito said, warning against using transient progress grades to judge long-term learning. John Fowler, another middle-school teacher, said the push-in approach "is not serving many students well" and urged the board to pursue collaborative solutions.
Special Education Director Carolyn Haines presented an overview of federal IDEA requirements, including FAPE (free appropriate public education), the least-restrictive-environment indicator and the IEP cycle. Haines told the board the district had 308 IEPs at the time of her slides (a decline of about 42 from the previous year) and outlined staffing levels (14 special-education teachers, five speech therapists, one occupational therapist and multiple instructional assistants). She said the state's indicator is a rising target (70% of students with IEPs spending most of their time in general education settings, increasing over time) and that IEP teams assess whether the push-in model meets each student's needs.
Board members questioned how the push-in model is implemented at middle and high school and whether general-education teachers receive sufficient training to support students with IEPs. Haines said special-education staff consult with general-education teachers and that principals provide targeted training and behavior-analytic support on a site-by-site basis. She said some students with extensive support needs remain in special-day-class settings where different standards apply.
Union speakers and multiple commenters also raised the district's special-education legal costs and recent litigation outcomes. A public commenter referenced a superior court order and a settlement (case number cited in public comment) that, the speaker said, required the district to pay $125,000 in a SPED-related matter; the district's consent-warrant list and staff comments confirmed ongoing SPED-related legal expenses were discussed.
The board did not adopt a new operational directive on Push-In at the meeting. Trustees directed site administrators and the special-education team to review site-level implementation, examine teachers who demonstrate success with SPED and EL students, and return with clarifying information about time-on-task and services at Carpenter Middle School. The presentation and ensuing discussion concluded with the board's invitation for continued collaboration and additional data-sharing.
Next steps: board members asked administration and the special-education team to provide clearer, site-level data on the number of minutes of specialized academic instruction students receive under the current model and to identify professional-learning strategies used by teachers who have positive outcomes with SPED students.
