SK Schools: PEELING BACK THE ONION. Part I

Why Good People Who Value Education Are Confused About the Need for $1.1 Million

My preference is to avoid joining the public conversation because I find it stressful and unnerving to express opinions that inevitably fall victim to the bias-laden world that is Facebook and its social media cousins, but there seems to be a need for greater context in this case. If you’re new to the conversation, there is no doubt that there are two passionate corners in this debate about the town’s budget and educational spending. There are some that oppose the current budget who ask legitimate questions and as an educator in town, I think it’s more than appropriate that taxpayers receive answers in terms of where their hard-earned money is going. The problem is, no one seems to be asking the most relevant question.

I haven’t been in this district very long (only since 2015) so I in no way consider myself all-knowing or expert in the actions of the previous Superintendents or Special Education Directors, but I do have valuable experience in two other districts that provides considerable perspective in terms of how things operate elsewhere. And from that vantage point, it is clear as day that there’s a missing piece to this story that has been absent from the public conversation. It is ultimately the source of that “relevant” question teased above: WHY ARE THESE “PROGRAMS” SO IMPORTANT TO SUPERINTENDENT SAVASTANO AND WHY CAN’T SHE JUST WAIT UNTIL THE UNCERTAINTY OF COVID IS BEHIND US?

The answer is this: Special Education in South Kingstown has not lived up to its promise over the last decade. Don’t believe me…ask an educator in town….As one special educator put it, “Under (past leadership), our Special Education Department devolved from one that met students’ needs to one that provided minimal services that were only delivered after students failed so miserably there were little to no other options.”

The following summary is based on input from 13 veteran South Kingstown educators (teachers and administrators, past and present) in an effort to try to piece this Special Education situation together to help show why the need for “expansion of programs” is so critical in SK schools, as the current Superintendent has claimed. Right now, we have a problem servicing our most academically challenged students from Pre-K to Grade 12. Teachers and support staff will indicate this, as will standard metrics of data collection. For example, the most recent state standardized test results, 2019 RICAS scores, indicate that only about 11 percent of our students with disabilities (11.35 for literacy, 10.41 for math) are meeting academic expectations. After over a decade of systematically neglecting students’ needs, expansion of programs such as co-teaching are vital to righting the ship. There are really three main avenues (or channels) that have led us to where we are today.

UNDER-SERVICING STUDENTS WHO QUALIFY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

Like districts across Rhode Island, South Kingstown moved toward inclusive classrooms as it became more and more apparent that best practice revolved around the idea that kids can learn best when they’re with their peers. This adjustment in Special Education philosophy naturally catered to the creation of co-teaching throughout the state (if you tune in to School Committee meetings regularly you’ve probably heard Committeewoman Brousseau praising her experiences in co-teaching, which were borne out of these state-wide changes when she was a public school teacher in a different district). In fact, co-teaching existed here, to some extent, but quickly professional development and enthusiasm around this model grew out of favor with central administration at the time for whatever reason. In concert with this change, teachers found less flexibility in providing services in general. Instead of Special Education getting a new face, as the state intended, it just became watered down here in SK. Teachers and parents now found it much more difficult for students who had legitimate challenges to receive an IEP (Individualized Education Program), which is the federal document that guides services for all students who receive specialized services under Special Education. Furthermore, the depth and breadth of services that students received also started to dry up. Although the “I” in IEP stands for Individualized, more often than not, students with academic challenges were being stamped with the same one-size-fits-all plan: 4 days of services, 30 minutes a day, in Executive Functioning (regardless of where their academic struggles were), often times outside of the classroom and separate from curriculum. Of note, this umbrella Executive Functioning IEP often restricted students from receiving services in academic areas most impacted by their disability. Teachers were also instructed to create IEPs with just one academic area of focus in them. For example, if a student was being serviced by a Special Educator in math, but had deficiencies in reading or written language, special educators were not allowed to service in those areas despite obvious needs, even if the disability was impacting other content areas.

Like a fastfood chain, previous SK administrators did their best to standardize and minimize special education and the tragedy of it is that lost in this effort were the needs of our most vulnerable children. After feasting on fastfood for a decade, South Kingstown schools are now attempting to recommit to a healthy diet. Our heart health is essential to these under-serviced students who struggle to find meaning and acceptance in our schools today. Notably, this has also contributed to a huge spike in behavioral problems over recent years. When thinking of behaviors that evidence this lack of connection between students and their school community, one can’t help but think of the incident where 7 police cars were needed for dismissal at our fifth and sixth grade building last September. It’s also been noted (publicly as early as last December) that our district has employed a higher amount of physical restraints on students over the last couple years. I do not have access to the data but I am confident there is a strong correlation between students who’ve required physical restraint (to ensure the safety of themselves or others) and learning disabilities. For too long our most challenged students have gotten the impression that our schools don’t care about them. You can’t blame them. This Superintendent has intentions and a game plan to recommit so that more and more kids can feel the love and belonging that spilled out of the Grade One Co-teaching Pilot Classroom at Peace Dale this year…or we could save money in the short-term and continue to just wish them the best.

IMPROPER USE OF ‘RTI’ (Response To Intervention):

Quick background: RTI is part of Rhode Island’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework adopted back in 2008 in response to federal guidelines from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004). In then Commissioner Gist’s words, “ the process involves forming a team to analyze a student’s problem, develop and implement an action plan, and evaluate the plan to ensure that student is getting the help he or she needs.” Today, and for the last several years, educators refer to this process as MTSS, but as it was RTI at the time, I’ve opted to stick with that language when referencing information from the past, despite it now being outdated.

The idea behind RTI is to create a “shared responsibility between general education and special education” (If that doesn’t scream co-teaching model I don’t know what does…but for some reason SK went in a different direction). There are three tiers to RTI, with the first being core instruction addressed by the classroom teacher and the third often times (but not always) being intensive interventions addressed by a classroom teacher, interventionist, and often times (but not always) a special educator. The idea was to have school districts build in a structured system that was leveled by student need which would then allow for educators to work collaboratively as teams to close gaps for students that may be falling behind, but not necessarily due to a learning disability (although that could be the case and this would be an important step in data collection to determine IEP eligibility down the road).

There were two problems in South Kingstown schools, one which was alluded to earlier: collaboration, which is at the heart of the model, was not stressed and in some cases impeded upon by the district’s administrative team. RTI and MTSS worked really well at one of our middle schools, but three years ago the collaborative structure there was put to an end by needless policy change from central administration with no good explanation as to why. Additionally, per district protocol, special educators were not allowed to attend data/RTI meetings at the elementary level. If RTI interventions did not succeed in closing gaps, students may be tested for special education eligibility at that time…but when it was time to conference and have eligibility meetings, math/writing/reading interventionists (who had been working with students through RTI and had the most relevant context to contribute to the conversation) were not allowed to attend meetings, even when parents requested their presence. I can’t speak to the exact intentions but it’s not a stretch to conclude that the Special Education Director may have been working to stymie discussion (parents are present in these meetings and would hear from teachers who work closely with their students, potentially in support of special services) to decrease the likelihood of IEP eligibility. So instead of a system meant to address different levels of need what we often ended up with was educational purgatory, where kids that didn’t respond to intervention would just get stuck…but while they were there in limbo, no additional funds needed to be spent on special education. This is the second problem in SK’s RTI. As one veteran special educator shared, “Students with disabilities have been given services through RTI instead of IEPs. RTI (MTSS) intent is to deliver services prior to the need for a referral but our district used it in place of.” What made this even trickier to get a handle on was that it differed wildly from building to building, from referring teacher to referring teacher, depending on administration’s perception or level of respect toward that educator. For example, it was very possibly for personal reasons that the successful MTSS program was dismantled at the middle school referenced above. The lack of system and consistency made it virtually impossible at times to advocate for students whose needs were not being met. And again, this was a Pre-K through 12 issue. Ask a teacher at the High School about the MTSS plan that the new principal inherited…don’t worry, it won’t be a long conversation. District wide, it was really a huge missed opportunity to reach so many of our students who needed us.

How would expanding co-teaching programs help here even though MTSS is separate from Special Education? With a co-teaching model small groups are the essential building blocks of curriculum delivery, which is exactly what Tier 2 of MTSS calls for. I think it’s obvious that co-teaching would be a great model (and was the intended model) to implement the targeted interventions and collaborative spirit that have been missing from our schools for much too long. Speaking of collaborative spirit:

CULTURE: OR LACK THEREOF

Once upon a time all teachers coming out of college were encouraged to get certified in Special Education as it would greatly increase their employment opportunities, and it would provide them great insight to best practices for their most challenged students whether they “taught” special education or not. But in the last handful of years, in SK, it’s been somewhat of a Scarlet Letter where teachers have opted not to use Special Ed. certification whenever possible. Our special educators have been underutilized and left out of the conversation and those positions have become less and less attractive in district. Protocols like that of the Special Education Director three years ago, where substitute teachers would no longer be hired to replace special educators when they were out, hurt our students as well as teacher morale for those who were pretty much told that when they’re not there it’s no big deal.

The underpinning of so much that is wrong in our schools is the lack of collaboration and the top down, directive-laden approach that existed here for a decade. To borrow from Martin Luther King Jr.’s assertion that only light can drive out darkness, only collaboration and teamwork can restore what has been missing from our schools. Because of the way we implemented and addressed special education since adopting an inclusion model under the previous superintendent, we’ve created a culture where all too often our talented special educators have been coming off the bench, rather than being a part of the starting five. For those who are rooted in concerns about fiscal responsibility and too much spending on education, for years you’ve been paying for a system that hasn’t tapped into the potential that is already on your roster. Go back and watch the passion that the Special Educator from the pilot program speaks with when she talks about her co-teaching experience this year. Co-teaching is both a way to get the most out of our special educators, our general education teachers, and to invest in the futures of children that for a decade we’ve been failing.

I think the fastfood analogy fits well. If the goal is to save money now by providing a cheaper product for our most challenged students then go ahead and vote to decrease the budget. But be cognizant of the ramifications that thinking shortsightedly will surely have on our schools and our community down the road.

Prior to becoming the Dean at Peace Dale, I was a history teacher for 11 years and I admittedly still think in analogy quite often. The world around us is exploding with demonstrations and a renewed focus on Civil Rights, race, and inequity. For those who opt to pay attention, they are learning about a history in our country that was long ignored. It is through that lens of revisiting history, at a micro level, that I’ve attempted to try to address that question that both issues bring to the surface:

How did we get here?

I hope the answers help guide your actions on July 14.

#ProtectSKSchools

• **I’ve made a couple edits to try to distance the intent of the article from that of laying blame with certain individuals. That is not the intent. The goal is to explain the problem as it exists currently so the need for the proposed solution and urgency of expanding co-teaching makes more sense to the community.
• If you’ve read this far I greatly appreciate it. Background came from several RIDE docs and SK Board Docs, and I’m happy to share references if you wish. I also included several quotes that educators shared with me under agreement of anonymity. I apologize, but I am not happy to share those references. There were topics that I would have liked to have had more concrete evidence for but instead had to rely on educator accounts and personal experience for. As much as we in education rely on data to inform our decision making, we teachers tend not to hold on to it once it’s provided that value and rarely is recollection accurate enough to appropriately quote directly in this medium, despite its root in truth. I encourage you to discuss and debate and challenge what’s been shared here. I have no intention of getting pulled into a back and forth but will take comments into account should I find the stamina (and time) for a Part II.

Mick Lefort

Dean of Students

Peace Dale Elementary

NEASK Vice President

micklefortSK@gmail.com