April 6, 2014

Improving Efficiencies and Effectiveness in Special Education: A Process Approach

Michael Neiman, Ph.D. CCC/S-LP Executive Vice President

Futures Education

Your Presenter

The Discussion:Special Education program delivery/fiscal

challenges

District budget reductions

Maximization of district budget allocations without reduction in services

Potential strategies to improve efficiencies and effectiveness

Presentation Overview

The Reality

The Reality (cont.)The Changing Face of Special Education

Have you ever had to cut a program or service as a result of unexpected expenditures in special education?

Reflection-Group Discussion 1

EFFECTIVENESS EFFICIENCY ($)

A more effective Response to Intervention (RtI) Process

Fewer students in Special Education

Efficacious Co-Teaching Fewer students in Special Education

More Push-In Services Re-allocation of Therapists

Promotion of Student Independence

RE-thinking of Capacities (e.g., personnel)

Criteria and Guidelines Fewer students in Special Education

More in-District Programs Minimize Out of District and Related Costs (e.g., Transportation)

Principals Underlying ThemesISSUES OF EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS

RELATED. EXAMPLES:

“There isn’t anything you can do about Special

Education costs – it is all required and mandated…”

The Fallacy

A Discussion of Efficiencies and Effectiveness

Have you ever been told that special education services and programs were “untouchable” and/or felt pressure not to question expenditures in this area?

Reflection-Group Discussion 2

Special Education is not a place, it is a service

Special Education is a complex support system

Systemic short and long term approaches can be identified and developed for significant savings in Special Education without negatively affecting students

Nine driving forces coming out of research from over 180 school districts identifies major areas of cost with significant opportunity for redesign and cost savings

The closer a district can achieve success in managing the nine identified driving forces, district costs will remain level or decrease while student outcomes will improve

The Conversation Today

Culture Clinical Related Service Providers Professional Development Pre-Referral Considerations Utilization of Paraprofessionals Team Leaders and Case Managers Out of District Placements Unions and Work Laws Resource Allocation and Span of Control

The Nine Driving Forces

Building the silo: districts with distinct separation between regular and special education had higher costs and less satisfactory performance

Districts with increased focus on inclusion and transparency had lower costs and more satisfactory outcomes

The more remote the commitment of all principals and teachers to work with all students, the higher the cost and more pronounced dissatisfaction with performance outcomes

The further removed district leadership was from complete and routine appreciation of the data, the higher the costs and the less satisfaction with performance

Culture

What’s your sense of the culture of student ownership in your District?

Reflection-Group Discussion 3

Districts without consistently strong and tight oversight had a higher incidence rate of self-referral, overt or tacit parental collusion, and less frequent alignment with the curriculum with associated higher costs

Universal practice pattern issues: (1) self-scheduling; (2) uniformity (e.g., entrance and exit criteria); (3) IEP “strong arming”; (4) promotion of the culture of discharge

Universal Management Issues: An absence of an electronic data collection system that captures :

(1) utilization of time; (2) admissions; (3) discharges; (4) practices that support LRE; and (5) equity of workloads

Clinical Related Service Providers

Districts have not uniformly invested in professional development

Districts routinely spent more than 84% of the school budget on salaries; but less than 1/2% on training

Professional development often addresses compliance and test scores

District-wide, routine and broadly inclusive, training/mentoring result in lower costs and greater satisfaction with outcomes

Broader view of professional development than just contract compliance

mentoring/coaching; blogs; conference calls; study groups; peer reviews

Professional Development

Districts that assigned this as a Special Education responsibility had a higher cost and identification rate than districts assigning this leadership to regular education (RtI and IDEA)

Leadership less conversant with the data had higher costs and less satisfactory performance

Districts with an effective co-teaching model have become less reliant on pre-referral processes

Some districts have been very creative, using the pre-referral process as a “step down” as well as a “step up”

Districts that have invested in Tier 1 interventions appear to have had better success in curbing referrals to the pre-referral process

Early Intervening-RtI Processes

Districts tended to focus on numbers/costs rather than utility/success

Management issues: (1) absence of entrance and exit criteria; (2) parental-teacher reliance;(3) student-centric vs. program-centric assignment; and (4) community entrenchment

Districts without tight management had higher costs and less satisfactory performance

Limited professional development reducing personnel and programmatic capacity

Utilization of Paraprofessionals

These are the key members to ensure programmatic fidelity, state compliance, and fiscal integrity, and serve as the right arm of the special education director in the schools

The greater the focus on case management skills, the lower the cost and the more satisfactory the performance: That is both compliance and programmatic vision are of equal importance

The reduction in professional development increases cost and supports negative outcomes

The importance of articulating a unified District vision with the accompanying “ammunition” of air-tight District documents (e.g., exit and entry criteria)

Team Leaders and Case Managers

The training and programmatic capacities have not kept pace with the student needs and complexities

Student with emotional and behavioral health challenges constitute the population with the highest resource demands and are typically the least accepted in their schools

The less the district invested in core capacities of addressing mental health and behavioral issues, the higher the cost and more exclusive the service, including the need for outplacements

Out of District Placements

How has your district addressed the issue of out of district placements?

Reflection-Group Discussion 4

What constraints exist in your board policies and/or contract language that limit or hinder the ability to provide supports to students?

Union and Work LawsReflection-Group Discussion 5

Our experience indicates many districts struggle in the effectiveness and efficiency in their expenditures of their finite special education resources

Districts attending to rethinking and reorganizing the delivery system had more stable costs

Resource Allocation: Span of Control

Overview: The design of an analysis should be robust, and allow the flexibility to review a number of programmatic, organizational, and fiscal areas (including transportation); these are typically inter-related.

Examples of Cost Avoidance Realized (per year):

A District of 4,100 students with an Annual Budget of $36M:

$575,000.00

A District of 4,000 students with an Annual Budget of $36M: (including transportation)

$193,000.00

Strategy 1: An Analysis of Special Education

Overview:

Professional Development (PD) and Implementation can occur either as an extension or an analysis (strategy 1) or as a stand alone strategy. In either case, this strategy is designed to help instructional, related services, and administration staff increase their capacity across a variety of areas.

Paradigms of Cost Avoidance:

In addition to the cost savings shared PD can lead to, long-term savings can be found in ensuring staff retention, risk management (i.e., the IEP process, and programmatic capacity.

Strategy 2: Professional Development and Implementation

Strategy 2: Professional Development and Implementation (cont.)

Elementary Principals Secondary Principals0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Effects of PD for Virginia Division

Pre Test Post Test

Overview:District Staff’s productivity and practice patterns are managed by an outside entityExample of Cost Avoidance:

In a District of 3,000 students there were approximately reductions of 3.0 FTEs without affecting the delivery of services; the $180,000.00 in cost avoidance with re-distributed to support all learners.

Strategy 3: Management of District Staff

Overview:The District may choose to completely privatize its services within a per capita (student) agreement, thus ensuring programmatic fidelity and cost certainty.Example of Cost Avoidance:

Depending of the size of the District, cost avoidance may range from $50,000.00 to $1M annually.

Strategy 4: Privatization of Staffing

What obstacles would you see to considering any of these 4 models in your district?

Reflection-Group Discussion 6

Discussion and Q & A