California Department of Education, Special Education Division’s special project, California Services for Technical Assistance and Training (CalSTAT) is funded through a contract with the Napa County Office of Education. CalSTAT is partially funded from federal funds, State Grants #H027A080116A. Additional federal funds are provided from a federal competitively awarded State Personnel Development Grant to California (#H323A070011) provided from the U.S. Department of Education Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U. S. Department of Education.
Over the past five years, more than 100 schools, districts, county offices of education, and SELPAs have received CA State Improvement Grant-funded technical assistance (TA) through CalSTAT to foster greater collaboration between special education and general education at their sites. The TA providers are primarily staff from "model sites" with experience operating collaboratively. Recently, a survey was conducted to find out what, if anything, had changed at the sites receiving the TA. Forty-two sites responded. Here's what we learned from their responses.
| Prior to Receiving TA | 4.19 |
|---|---|
| After Receiving TA | 6.66 |
There was a 59% increase in the average degree of collaboration at the sites.
| Degree of Collaboration | Prior to Receiving TA Sites per Degree |
After Receiving TA Sites per Degree |
|---|---|---|
| 10 to 9 | 0 | 2 |
| 8 to 9 | 0 | 8 |
| 7 to 8 | 4 | 9 |
| 6 to 7 | 1 | 8 |
| 5 to 6 | 8 | 8 |
| 4 to 5 | 7 | 6 |
| 3 to 4 | 14 | 1 |
| 2 to 3 | 5 | 0 |
| 1 to 2 | 3 | 0 |
Over the past five years, the 42 collaborative sites received a total of 222 days of support, which included 122 days of site-based TA and 100 days of site team participation in regional or statewide Collaborative Leadership Institute meetings.
| Number of TA Days Received by the Site | Average Degree of Collaboration |
|---|---|
| 1 Day | 5.49 |
| 2 Days | 4.48 |
| 3 Days | 4.37 |
| 4 to 6 Days | 3.08 |
| 7 to 9 Days | 3.31 |
| 10 to 13 Days | 2.90 |
| 14 to 17 Days | 4.00 |
| Number of TA Days Received by the Site | Average Increase in the Degree of Collaboration |
|---|---|
| 1 Day | 1.52 |
| 2 Days | 2.10 |
| 3 Days | 3.11 |
| 4 to 6 Days | 2.01 |
| 7 to 9 Days | 2.99 |
| 10 to 13 Days | 3.17 |
| 14 to 17 Days | 2.93 |
Here's where the sites are headed, and what has emerged, as they move toward greater collaboration:
Continue to develop remedial courses for identified and non-identified students and continue staff development activities in asset development to assist in building relationships with each student. To teach the importance of each student's ability rather than focus on their disability. To provide increased opportunities for team teaching courses.
We are currently putting an evaluation tool in place to determine efficacy of collaborative models. Hire a second literacy specialist to support district-wide literacy efforts. Continue collaborative efforts.
Continue monitoring results. Continue to work with specialists to assist district in working on instructional strategies and curriculum. Having an objective look at where we are. Early intervention. Acknowledge we can do it better; status quo is not okay.
Expanding Learning Center to incorporate more general ed. involvement. Develop district differential grading guidelines. Participation in regional and state Collaborative Leadership Institute. Looking into BEST as school-wide approach to positive behavioral support.
Fear of change. Teacher skill level overall and in core academic areas. Administrative buy-in. Willing-ness to remove labels is not there. Initial budgetary issues seen as an obstacle to moving forward.
We have had issues with the teachers union and the concerns of general ed teachers lacking knowledge of how to effectively work with special education students.
One huge challenge has been credentialing issues in collaboration. Schools have had questions about the role of special educators in the general education classroom.
Allocating time for collaboration and communication.
Scheduling - high caseload and students K-4 in a variety of classrooms. Teacher buy-in. Differing views of collaboration. Negative attitudes.
Educating regular education administrators to think outside the box. They are very concerned about moving away from traditional special education pull-out. I frequently receive calls - "Is this legal?"
Combining resources (fiscal) and still abiding by fiscal requirements for funds.
Time to get special ed requirements done, e.g. time for IEP goals in other areas besides reading. Hard to get SDC kids that can't be in general education covered. Staff time and resources is a struggle.
Probably the single-most important factor has been the support of my superintendent who has told all school sites this will happen.
Focus on literacy utilizing research-based intervention curriculum. Serving students based on need (rather than label). Being a new high school - open minds ready for a fresh start and positive change. Connection with CalSTAT Technical Assistance.
General ed staff more involved in IEP process through legislation. New staff with open attitude; retirement of some more resistant staff. Support from district level administration. Provision of needed in-service opportunity and support staff to general ed. Training of support staff both general ed and special ed together. Poor statewide testing scores - gave a reason to do it differently.
Visiting other schools and spending time developing a plan that honors teachers; obtaining materials that can be used by special and general ed students.
Outside facilitator had no "baggage" or "agenda" to bring to the decision making process.
Much more integration working collectively as a team toward progress and monitoring of that progress. We set more measurable goals via the SST process and have helped general ed with more of an objectifiable data-driven approval with scaffolding. Thank you for your assistance. It has strengthened our team.
More team taught courses with resource and regular education teachers in core subject areas. A three-tiered remedial reading program taught by one reading specialist, four resource teachers and two regular education teachers. Collaboration regarding special education student schedules.
Learning Center model has grown to include over 8-10 teachers providing intervention services to referred students. Interventions expanded to include strategic and intensive reading and math intervention. Consultant has also helped our school restructure for small learning communities.
Now all students are assessed school-wide. Non-special ed and special ed students are regrouped for reading depending on assessment results.
At-risk student needs are proactively addressed. General ed teachers experience direct support and consultation from special ed specialists. Gen and spec ed teaching staff utilize multiple measures and analyze student results collaboratively. Gen and spec ed staff are working toward designing curriculum delivery to address specific student needs.
There is a concerted effort to improve instruction in literacy in general, and in effective reading instruction and supports specifically. In addition, earlier identification of students requiring intervention has improved. There are still too few staff people. But district awareness, forced further by NCLB, is at least opening doors.
The most significant result is that the District had 10 SDC classes and 4 County SDC classes during the 2001-2002 school year; while today the District maintains only 3 SDC classes and 1 County class. The District moved toward including previous SDC students in schools in the District with whole school models.
API score has broken through the 700 threshold, special education and behavioral referrals have declined, work has begun on asset development and building virtues, the student community has become more cohesive, and the campus has a better overall feel to it. More students scoring at the above basic and proficient levels on standards tests.
Where schools have adopted a collaborative service delivery model API scores have generally improved, SE referrals have decreased, and student and teacher attitudes have become more positive.
We are only 6 weeks into what we call "Differentiated Instruction Time." Consequently, empirical data is just beginning to be collected. Observational data demonstrated students spend more time actively engaged in reading activities and there is less classroom disruption.
Special ed referrals decreasing. More mainstreaming opportunities available. Increase in inclusion of students with support of additional staff. Increase in parent involvement. Documentation of more interventions being tried. More effort in early intervention; monitoring of rate of referral and which grades.
Behavioral referrals more complete. Regular education staff more receptive to accommodations in regular education classrooms.
Students are feeling more successful and API scores went up.
Improved attitudes--other alternatives besides referrals.
Generally, more acceptance of SE students as part of the campus. Special Education referrals have decreased. Resource Specialist caseloads have decreased and those teachers have time to serve more at-risk students earlier.
| Prior to TA | After TA | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment | 3.79 | 6.48 | +2.69 |
| Intervention | 3.83 | 6.98 | +3.15 |
| Core Curriculum | 3.95 | 6.77 | +2.82 |
| Teaming | 3.40 | 6.70 | +3.30 |
| Accountability | 4.17 | 6.74 | +2.57 |
| The Role of Parents | 5.05 | 5.98 | +0.93 |
| Administration | 5.02 | 7.12 | +2.10 |
| Resources | 3.93 | 6.60 | +2.67 |
| Professional Development | 4.55 | 6.88 | +2.33 |
| Overall | 4.17 | 6.86 | +2.69 |
| API Prior to TA | API After TA | |
|---|---|---|
| Site A (3 Days) | 459 | 619 |
| Site B (3Days) | 499 | 596 |
| Site C (3 Days) | 576 | 668 |
| Site D (3 Days) | 493 | 614 |
| Site E (3 Days) | 614 | 665 |
| Site F (3 Days) | 624 | 695 |
| Site G (3 Days) | 605 | 715 |
| Site H (3 Days) | 703 | 744 |
| Site I (3 Days) | 437 | 574 |
| Site J (3 Days) | 820 | 816 |
| Site K (3 Days) | 744 | 797 |
| Site L (4 Days) | 625 | 717 |
| Site M (4 Days) | 521 | 626 |
| Site N (4 Days) | 507 | 610 |
| Site O (5 Days) | 527 | 610 |
| Site P (7 Days) | 555 | 646 |
| Site Q (7 Days) | 684 | 765 |
| Site R (8 Days) | 547 | 619 |
| Site S (9 Days) | 496 | 593 |
| Site T (10 Days) | 704 | 735 |
| Site U (10 Days) | 698 | 735 |
| Site V (14 Days) | 757 | 779 |
| Site W (17 Days) | 687 | 725 |
In addition to growth in API scores, which many schools directly attributed to their success in collaborating, sites reported changes in the following areas:
This report was developed by Cheryl "Li" Walter, Ph.D., of the CA Institute on Human Services, who is the SIG Evaluator, along with Kelly Riedel, CalSTAT Activities Evaluation Coordinator. Questions should be directed to either of them at (707) 849-2268. A copy of this Collaborative Sites Survey Findings report can be downloaded as a pdf at: http://www.calstat.org/SpecialReports.htm
Funds for this project come exclusively from new federal funds awarded as a State Improvement Grant to California (CFDA 84.323A) as allowed in Part D of Public Law 105-17, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997. These dollars are considered local assistance funds and will assist individuals serving children birth to 22 years of age and their families.