Special Education Task Force Reports On Its Findings

By Eliza Hallabeck

The Board of Education heard a report Tuesday, June 19, on efforts made and information gathered by a Planning and Placement Team (PPT) Task Force set up in the district in October.

As Newtown High School Special Education Department Chair Sherry Earle told the school board, the task force, which she oversaw, was charged by Superintendent of Schools Janet Robinson to conduct objective inquiries into concerns, review findings from a Connecticut Special Education Parent Survey posed between 2010 and 2011, decide on strategies to solicit feedback on the PPT process, and more.

Since its appointment, Ms Earle said the task force members have worked tirelessly on their endeavor. The task force included teachers, counselors, and administrators from each of Newtown’s schools.

Also in October, a Connecticut Department of Education Bureau of Special Education survey prepared by Glen Martin Associates of Troy, N.Y., was presented to the Board of Education. Newtown parents were among those in 30 towns surveyed regarding the 2010-11 academic year. Other participating towns included East Granby, Windsor Locks, Watertown, North Branford, New Canaan, Hamden and Hartford. Overall, Dr Robinson told the Board of Education at the time, Newtown’s responding parents reflected positively roughly 80 percent of the time, and roughly 20 percent responded negatively. She also said during the October 18 meeting the dissatisfied responses would be used to better special education in the district, doing so was part of the PPT Task Force’s charge, according to report prepared for the school board for the June 19 meeting by the task force.

As Ms Earle explained to the school board last week, a large part of the task force’s investigation centered on collecting current information about the PPT process in town from staff, parents, and students, anonymously. The PPT process is a set of meetings that identifies and determines a student’s special educational needs.

Roughly 60 students and 160 parents responded to the task force’s survey, according to Ms Earle, adding the students had mostly positive things to say about the PPT process. Overall, she said, parents also had positive communications about the process through the survey.

One item identified through the survey, Ms Earle said, was multiple responders said the use of “educational jargon” is ineffective.

“If you’re a parent coming in, it’s gibberish,” said Ms Earle, saying one suggestion the task force will make will be for staff in PPT meetings to avoid using jargon.

There was about a 13 to 20 percent rate of response for the surveys, according to Ms Earle, and the surveys were generated for each target group: students, parents, and staff.

Despite the low response, Ms Earle said she felt the level of positive feedback was important, given the tendency of anonymous surveys to have critical or negative responses.

After Ms Earle presented her findings to the school board, BOE Chair Debbie Leidlein and BOE member William Hart both asked Ms Earle if the survey process could be continued.

“I want to make sure that we are continuing to do these same standards that we have learned are very effective,” said Ms Leidlein near the end of Ms Earle’s presentation.

Ms Earle suggested next switching the survey to focus on 504 meetings, then switching back to PPT meetings to continually monitor the processes.

Report Findings

According to the report prepared for the Board of Education, effective parts of the PPT process include planning in advance with families, having an organizational structure that guides the process, providing clear reports, providing data-based decisions, and more. Some ineffective parts of the process identified in the report include lack of punctuality, parents not attending meetings, lack of pre-planning and conferencing, and more.

Results from the student surveys, according to the report, were more than 90 percent positive. Those students responded to the survey saying, “This was an important meeting,” “I was able to say what I wanted to in my meeting,” and, “I understand the plan we made at my meeting.”

Another 90 percent of the parents responding were generally positive too, according to the report.

“Parents,” the report reads, “selected ‘slightly agree’ to ‘strongly agree’ more than 90 percent of the time on all survey questions including, ‘I knew the purpose of today’s meeting; I felt there was adequate time allotted for this meeting; I felt that my concerns were heard in this meeting; I felt I was part of the team; I felt my child’s teacher, the special education teacher, school psychologist, and the team administrator were each an integral part of the team; I felt that staff reports… were clearly explained.’”

To some questions, according to the report, a small portion of parents responded with negative answers. Roughly two percent of parents disagreed with the statement on the survey, “I think that the school team proposed services that will meet my child’s needs,” and roughly four percent disagreed with the statement, “I understand how the services will be delivered.”

Following the surveys, checklists were created by the task force for staff to use during the PPT process.

Ms Earle said recommendations made by the task force following the survey results are for district special education staff to continue doing their work, continue to refine the PPT process, expand the task force’s focus to include the 504 process, and to focus on the referral process for special education.