facilitator: constance...

Winning at Compliance:

Special Education AccountabilitySpring 2017

Facilitator: Constance Barnes-Watson

Audience can respond at PollEv.com/constancebar449

Text messagingCONSTANCEBAR449 to 22333 to join the

session, then text A,B,C,D

Quick Facts about Constance

Background in Business and Education

Current Regional Manager for Special Programs at K12.com

15+ years of educational experience in urban, private, and charter schools

Experience at the school, district and state administrative levels

Former Charter Schools Program Director for the South Carolina Dept. of Education

Charter School Grant Reviewer for the USDE Charter School SEA grant

Poet, writer, and lover of ice cream

In our schools, we sometimes playa game of roulette with special education compliance:

• Underestimating staffing needs

• Creating schedules for special education students after general education schedules have been completed

• “Negotiating” services in IEP’s***

In new, start-up schools, the under-estimation of staffing needs poses the greatest risk to compliance.

However, your schools can WIN when you have the best hand!

Special Programs Compliance isn’t a game…

Today’s goals and objectives:

Goals: Identify the “C’s” associated with special education complianceDiscuss the “C’s” associated with special education compliance as it relates to leadership in our schools.

Learning Objective:By the end of the session, leaders will increase their knowledge of the “C’s” associated with compliance by 80% as evidenced in the completion of their exit survey.

What are the C’s associated with compliance?

CognitionCostsCommunication“Calendaring”

Cognition: Winning by Knowing

Too often in our settings, our leaders are far removed from the actual knowledge of their special programs, which factors into compliance.

It is imperative as new and current leaders that you are cognizant of your current and potential population as well as having a working knowledge of each program.

Cognition: Knowing the Numbers


Compliance in special programming relies on consistently reviewing the numbers and ratios of special populations in your schools.

As School Leaders/LEA’s are you cognizant of:Enrollment by disability category?Caseload caps by disability category?

http://archives.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/doe/legalservices/160-4-7-.14.pdf


The data shows that we are consistently trending at 10-12% of our populations consisting of students with disabilities.In the last 2 years I've witnessed the numbers trend upward with consideration of students in the RTI/MTSS process.10% may seem relatively small, however, 10% of a relatively small charter school (estimating 300 student), could pose great challenges to a start-up school:

Did the school “strategically hire” for more than 1 teacher with special education certification to manage the overage?10% are currently eligible; has the school considered any student who may enter Tier 3 or enroll with Tier 3 documentation for possible eligibility, which may increase the overall population of students with disabilities.Has the school considered the continuum of services which may be required, including co-teaching and self-contained classes?

Cost: Winning by Calculating

The Cost Factor in Compliance

As we discussed earlier, special education populations typically comprise between 10-12% of the overall school population.

Many start-up charter schools under-estimate the potential costs associated with special education:

Adequate teaching staff

Related services associated costs (district or stand-alone LEA)

Training required for specialized programming

It is imperative that new charters carefully study their potential demographic and allow “cushions” for potential high-needs students.

Real-world charter scenario:

La-La-Land Charter School opened in 2015-16; serving a population with mostly “high-incidence” students with disabilities. During 2016-17 enrollment, a student with a Visual Impairment (VI) enrolled in the LEA. The student requires Braille services and a weekly consult with an itinerant Teacher of the Visually Impaired.

Associated Costs for 2016-17:

Orientation & Mobility @ $90/hr., 1.5hr/mo. , 10mo. = $1,350

Teacher of the Visually Impaired @ $125/hr, 2hrs/wk, 42 wks/yr = $10,500

Total costs for 1 new student = $11,850/yr.

Real-world charter scenario:

While this appears to be a relatively “high-needs” student, it is not “high-needs” as defined by IDEA (2004) to allow the school to qualify for the Grant for High Cost Funds (GHCF), thereby placing the fiscal responsibility on the charter school.

As school leaders, you must watch your special education enrollment numbers closely and continuously converse with those who are making decisions regarding special education and RTI/MTSS.

http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Documents/Budget%20and%20Grant/2016%20docs/Georgia%20Plan%20for%20High%20Cost%20Funds.pdf

–Constance Barnes-Watson, 2017

“The cost of compliance outweighs the cost of compliance. The effects of

non-compliance are at times immeasurable.”

Real-world non-compliance scenario:

Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1285 (11th Cir. 2008)

http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/draper.aps.comped.htm

Communication: Winning

with “Fierce Conversations”

Winning by Communicating

In observations of state complaints filed as well as due process cases, the root cause of the issues could be traced to the lack of effective communication:

Failure to engage in consistent communication with parents throughout the eligibility process.

Failure to respond to parents' "Direct Request for Referral" in a timely manner.

Failure to provide Prior Written Notice (PWN) of adverse actions affecting students in special education.

Failure to make true "team-based" decisions when developing an IEP.

http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Documents/Sp%20Ed%20Implementation%20Manual%20Part%201_8-12.pdf

Winning by Communicating: Having factual, "Fierce Conversations"

Beyond the state and federal definitions of the Local Education Agency's (LEA) role, school leaders must be willing to engage in factual, "fierce" conversations with IEP Teams.

Why "fierce" conversations?

Winning by Communicating:

“Successful relationships require that all parties view getting their core needs met as being legitimate.”(Scott, 2002, p.72)

The relationship between the LEA and the parent of a child with disabilities will only be successful if the parents feel that their core needs are understood.


Remind yourself and your staff that “hearing people’s words is only the beginning” of the listening process. (Scott, 2002, p. 103)

IEP meetings and IEP’s are filled with words but are we as LEA’s and IEP team members truly listening to what parents want for their children?


“The truth will set you free – but first it may thoroughly irritate you!” (Scott, 2002, p. 75)

Calendaring, Calendaring, Calendaring…

“When you’re early, you’re on time; when you’re on time, you’re late…”

The 30-30-30 Rule

Knowing the 4 C’s will give your team the winning hand!

Be cognizant of the special programs and who’s enrolled in those programs.

Consistently communicate with stakeholders in the programs.

Consider the cost of non-compliance.

Live by the 30-30-30 rule.

References

• Scott, Susan. 2002. Fierce Conversations, Achieving Success at Work & in Life, One Conversation at a Time.

• GADOE Special Education Implementation Manual Retrieved from:http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-andAssessment/SpecialEducationServices/Pages/Implementation-Manual.aspx

Questions? Comments?

Thank you for participating today!

Contact information:

Constance Barnes-Watson, [email protected]

678-646-4496