Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special education review finds procedural fixes needed; district plans targeted improvement and expanded intervention pilots
Summary
A state cyclical monitoring review found six procedural compliance errors and flagged three broader areas for district improvement (LRE inclusion rates, public‑school enrollment categories, and state‑test participation). District staff also reported promising small pilots of Do the Math, Go Math and RoboKind and plans to expand targeted interventions next year.
District special‑education staff told the Education Committee that Pennsylvania’s cyclical monitoring team reviewed roughly 66 targeted records plus 10 comprehensive files (on‑site Feb. 18) and found largely procedural issues rather than denials of services. "Of all those 66 students... there were 980 different areas of compliance. There were six areas that they found out of compliance and these were largely procedural areas," the presenter said.
The six procedural findings included three errors in ESY (extended‑school‑year) timing where determinations were made in March rather than by the required February deadline; two documents missing signatures; and one IEP with missing demographic information. Staff said the district will correct files and resubmit them to PDE and that PD (the reviewer) will sample another 10 files next March to confirm remediation.
Monitoring also highlighted three areas that warrant district investigation and improvement planning: least restrictive environment (LRE) inclusion rates, public‑school enrollment proportions by disability category (for example, the district’s speech‑and‑language classification was 20.6% vs. a 13.6% state figure cited by reviewers), and participation of students with IEPs in state testing. The presenter noted the district’s LRE metric—students included 80% or more of the school day—was 59.2% last year; the reviewer cited a benchmark near 61.7%.
Board members pressed for follow‑up analysis to determine whether higher speech‑and‑language rates reflect true district identification patterns or other causes (language diversity, diagnostic criteria, or different exit practices). The presenter said staff will review three‑to‑five years of trends, compare neighboring districts, survey parents and teachers on barriers to inclusion, and increase professional development on inclusive practice and universal design for learning.
Separately, staff reported small, targeted pilots of three math/reading interventions intended for diverse needs: Do the Math (skill‑based intervention), Go Math (core curriculum replacement for select special‑education cohorts) and RoboKind (teacher‑led, computer‑assisted intervention often used in autism support). Teacher surveys of the limited pilots showed high usability and engagement (reported program effectiveness scores: Do the Math 4.5/5, Go Math 4.67/5, RoboKind 4.5/5) and anecdotal student gains; staff said they plan to expand those pilots next year and to monitor student outcome data after a fuller implementation period.
The committee did not vote on formal actions. District staff said they will return with trend analyses, an improvement plan where required, and mid‑year outcome checks for any expanded pilots.
