Mount Olive Township Public Schools Special Education Reengineering Plan DRAFT May 15,2011

The Challenge: Proficiency for All by 2014

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB), Federal law requires that students served through special education programming meet the same standards for achievement as all other children, regardless of their handicap. NCLB regulations requires that all students(including those identified with learning handicaps) must meet state-level proficient standards (except those that are specifically excused through the childs IEP).

The Challenge: Proficiency for All by 2014

The Mount Olive Public School District employs 67 certified teachers and over 100 classroom aides to work with slightly more than 800 students with handicapping conditions across six schools and numerous private institutions. Services to students include
a wide range of exceptionalities from learning disabled to multiply disabled; and from autistic to hearing impaired.

STATUS: Mount Olive Schools Special Education

The most recent results from the 2009-10 NJ ASK and HSPA assessments
reveal that of 78 special education third graders, more than half (53.8%) failed the language arts section of the NJASK. One third of the same group failed the math exam. Sixty-three percent of fourth graders failed language arts (38.6% failed math). Of our districts 76 special education 5th graders, 68.1% failed the language arts section of the NJASK. On the other hand, only 30.4% of the districts 5th grade special education population failed the math section.
Sixth graders produced similar results; 61.8% failed the language arts section of the NJASK while only 46.1% failed the math portion of the same test. However, seventh and eighth grade students scored better on the language arts assessment section than they did on math section. Sixty-two percent of seventh graders and sixty-four percent of eighth grades failed the math section of the NJASK. At the same time, 35% of seventh graders and 34% of eighth graders failed the language arts section. Among high school special education students, 64% failed the math HSPA exam while 34% failed the language arts section.

3rd Grade LAL SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 80% 27.8% 70% 60% 6.3% 22.0% 0.0% 9.8% 29.4% 43.3% 35.5% 42.3% 59.9% 75.8% 62.2% 70.6% 30% 20% 31.3% 10% 0% 15.9% 9.8% 16.2% 12.0% 13.9% 24.0% 61.1% 56.7% 62.7% 53.8% 33.5% PP 67.1% 77.2% 73.5% P 67.6% 11.1% 0.0%

8.1%

10.9%

3.8% 12.7%

1.8%

8.8%

1.7%

6.6%

30.8%

AP

62.5% 80.4%

50%
40%

LAL AP P PP Mean n

Tinc Rd SPED 1 10 5 209.1 16

Tinc Rd Sandshore Sandshore REGED SPED REGED 18 51 13 225 82 0 5 12 189.6 17 5 41 5 219 51

Mountain Mountain View View SPED REGED 2 5 11 204.2 18 8 75 16 217.1 99

CMS SPED 0 13 17 196.7 30

CMS REGED 10 71 11 222.9 92

District SPED 3 33 42 199.9 78

District REGED 41 238 45 221 324

DFG SPED 40 793 1401 189.7 2234

DFG REGED 996 7597 2721 214.2 11314

State SPED 259 4819 10587 184.8 15665

State REGED 5385 49154 27505 208.2 82044

3rd Grade Math SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 56.3% 30% 20% 10% 0% 30.5% 47.1% 31.4% 44.4% 36.7% 10.1% 2.2% 39.4% 39.1% 33.3% 35.8% 37.5% 30.4% 17.4% PP 40.7% 37.5% 23.5% 16.7% 23.3% 25.6% 23.1% 41.0% 28.2% 49.1% 58.7% 38.9% 40.0% 41.0% 39.4% 58.0%

AP

50.5%
62.2% 29.4% 64.7%

41.4%
P 41.6%

6.3%

7.3%

3.9%

6.2%

10.1%

Math AP P PP Mean n

Tinc Rd SPED 6 9 1 239.6 16

Tinc Rd Sandshore Sandshore REGED SPED REGED 51 25 6 256.3 82 4 5 8 206 17 33 16 2 253.3 51

Mountain Mountain View View SPED REGED 3 7 8 209.4 18 50 39 10 247.8 99

CMS SPED 7 12 11 216.8 30

CMS REGED 54 36 2 256.7 92

District SPED 20 32 26 217.9 78

District REGED 188 116 20 253.4 324

DFG SPED 630 926 679 220.1 2235

DFG REGED 5555 4609 1141 246 11315

State SPED 3625 6184 5891 213.3 15700

State REGED 33673 34112 14272 236.8 82057

4th Grade LAL SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 45.5% 32.0% 16.0% 22.2% 10.8% 20.6% 22.8% 33.1% PP 64.7% 62.7% 78.5% 86.4% 60.7% 63.6% 65.5% 70.6% 54.5% 58.7% 63.9% 65.5% 62.3% P 55.9% 0.0% 21.3% 35.3% 0.0% 10.8% 4.5% 9.1% 39.3% 0.0% 9.3% 13.9% 35.2% 1.1% 13.9% 31.8% 2.7% 14.9% 27.2% 2.2%

11.0% AP

LAL AP P PP Mean n

Tinc Rd SPED 0 12 10 196.4

Tinc Rd Sandshore Sandshore REGED SPED REGED 16 47 12 224.4 0 6 11 190.5 7 51 7 220.8

Mountain Mountain View View SPED REGED 1 2 19 173.5 7 44 24 209.6

CMS SPED 0 11 17 182

CMS REGED 10 46 16 218.4

District SPED 1 31 56 185.7

District REGED 40 188 59 218.2

DFG SPED 62 744 1531 184.9

DFG REGED 1697 7082 2594 216.9

State SPED 354 4420 11463 179.2

State REGED 9110 46263 27456 209.5

22

75

17

65

22

75

28

72

88

287

2337

11373

16237

82829

4th Grade Math SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 9.1% 90% 80% 50.8% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 27.3% 5.3% 33.3% 29.4% 4.6% 6.7% 5.6% 5.6% 10.1% 17.5% 50.0% 41.2% 43.4% 61.3% 40.9% 22.7% 21.4% 29.4% 39.1% 46.7% 52.8% 53.0% 47.9% 38.0% 40.9% 41.7% P 20.5% 20.1% 17.4% AP

32.1%

44.6%

46.7%
50.0% 46.4%

42.0% 41.7% 38.6% 41.5% 38.2% 44.5% PP

Math AP P PP Mean n

Tinc Rd SPED 5 11 6 216

Tinc Rd Sandshore Sandshore REGED SPED REGED 46 25 4 255.3 5 7 5 219.8 33 29 3 248.3

Mountain Mountain View View SPED REGED

2 9 11 195.1 35 35 5 244.5

CMS SPED 6 9 13 213.4

CMS REGED 38 30 4 250.1

District SPED 18 36 34 211.4

District REGED 152 119 16 249.6

DFG SPED 470 975 894 212.3

DFG REGED 5448 4779 1150 244.2

State SPED 2838 6190 7241 205.9

State REGED 32437 35930 14493 234.8

22

75

17

65

22

75

28

72

88

287

2339

11377

16269

82860

5th Grade LAL SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 7.1% 90% 80% 35.7% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 29.1% 10% 0% 16.4% 17.4% 19.5% 16.1% 19.6% 73.1% 61.6% 71.2% 77.8% 65.2% 73.3% 68.1% 65.6% 71.2% 60.6% 10.4% 22.2% 20.3% 34.8% 20.9% 26.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 2.1% 18.4% 30.4% 32.3% 13.9% 27.0% 1.7% 10.3%

20.7%

59.8%

66.5% 65.6% AP P PP

57.1%

8.5%

LAL AP P PP Mean n

Tinc Rd SPED 1 5 8 197.1

Tinc Rd Sandshore Sandshore REGED SPED REGED 7 49 11 219.3 0 4 14 177.1 12 42 5 225.3

Mountain Mountain View View SPED REGED 0 8 15 193.3 18 53 15 223.3

CMS SPED 0 4 11 186.8

CMS REGED 18 52 17 223.9

District SPED 1 21 47 188.7

District REGED 55 196 48 223

DFG SPED 46 719 1461 186.4

DFG REGED 1637 7803 2302 217.9

State SPED 285 4470 11771 181

State REGED 8675 50932 24434 211.2

14

67

18

59

23

86

15

87

69

299

2226

11742

16526

84044

5th Grade Math SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 28.6% 80% 52.2% 70% 60% 50% 40% 43.3% 30% 43.3% 20% 10% 0% 4.5% 0.0% 35.7% 27.8% 33.9% 21.7% 3.5% 2.3% 2.7% 8.0% 41.3% 35.7% 55.6% 56.5% P 66.1% 67.4% 46.7% 49.3% 57.5% 50.7% 60.9% 40.9% 36.7% 16.7% 13.3% 21.7% 20.3% 17.7% 14.6% 41.9% AP

29.1%

40.0%

40.2% 30.4%

36.5%

48.6%
41.3% 14.9% PP

Math AP P PP Mean n

Tinc Rd SPED 4 5 5 218.4

Tinc Rd Sandshore Sandshore REGED SPED REGED 35 29 3 247.1 3 10 5 206.7 39 20 0 258.4

Mountain Mountain View View SPED REGED

5 13 5 224 58 25 3 258.6

CMS SPED 2 7 6 207.2

CMS REGED 50 35 2 252.3

District SPED 14 34 21 214.8

District REGED 182 109 8 254.2

DFG SPED 397 916 924 209.4

DFG REGED 5948 4854 940 246.6

State SPED 2424 6084 8053 202.3

State REGED 35211 36355 12490 237.5

14

67

18

59

23

86

15

87

69

299

2237

11742

16561

84056

6th Grade LAL SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 29.8% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 34.2% 25.9% AP 3.9% 11.3%

1.6% 12.1%

0.9% 9.0%

64.7%

75.4%

71.8%

68.6%
30% 20% 61.8%

73.2%

PP 26.3% 10% 13.3% 0% District SPED District REGED DFG SPED DFG REGED State SPED State REGED

16.1%

LAL AP P PP Mean n

District SPED 3 26 47 194.1 76

District REGED 34 227 40 221.7 301

DFG SPED 35 648 1491 188.4 2174

DFG REGED 1469 8697 1952 220.8 12118

State SPED 147 4134 11697 183 15981

State REGED 7645 54792 22272 214.3 84709

6th Grade Math SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 6.3% 90% 80% 70% 38.2% 60% 50% 51.8% 40% 54.8% 30% 46.1% 20% PP 10% 8.6% 0% District SPED District REGED DFG SPED DFG REGED State SPED State REGED 13.5% 20.9% 59.1% 61.5% 53.4% P 15.8% 27.3% 36.5% 33.1% AP 5.7%

34.7%

32.7%

Math AP P PP Mean n

District SPED 12 29 35 207.4 76

District REGED 110 165 26 239.2 301

DFG SPED 137 754 1285 195.7 2176

DFG REGED 4017 6478 1634 234.8 12129

State SPED 917 5232 9838 192.1 15987

State REGED 23127 43904 17706 227.6 84737

7th Grade LAL SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 27.4% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 60.6% 30% 48.5% 20% PP 10% 12.8% 0% District SPED 5.2% District REGED DFG SPED DFG REGED State SPED State REGED 21.9% 64.8% 59.8% 71.3% 57.3% P 47.0% 34.2% 32.0% 26.5% 4.5% 3.1% 2.2% 20.8% AP

LAL AP P PP Mean n

District SPED 3 31 32 197.4 66

District REGED 106 188 16 234.4 310

DFG SPED 63 643 1302 188.4 2008

DFG REGED 3118 6809 1455 229.3 11382

State SPED 347 4236 11398 181.6 15981

State REGED 17679 48745 18611 221.5 85035

7th Grade Math SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 6.1% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 71.2% 30% 20% 27.4% 10% 0% District SPED District REGED DFG SPED DFG REGED State SPED State REGED 15.2% 19.3% PP 41.6% 70.1% 44.5% 73.6% P 22.7% 43.2% 23.2% 36.2% 21.5% 6.7% 4.9%

28.6%

AP

43.9%

Math AP P PP Mean n

District SPED 4 15 47 187.2 66

District REGED 134 129 47 236.8 310

DFG SPED 135 465 1404 182.9 2004

DFG REGED 4126 5060 2197 232.2 11383

State SPED 782 3443 11756 177 15981

State REGED 24338 37356 23341 222.9 85035

8th Grade LAL SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 29.3% 80% 70% 60% 50% 68.6% 40% 66.8% 30% 20% 10% 0% District SPED 1.9% District REGED 3.9% DFG SPED DFG REGED State SPED 9.4% State REGED 61.4% 52.3% 41.3% 35.2% PP P 36.7% 45.6% 64.8% 55.6% 0.0% 3.0% 2.1% 22.0% AP

LAL AP P PP Mean n

District SPED District REGED 0 46 25 207.7 71 116 194 6 242.1 316

DFG SPED 59 1089 809 204.9 1957

DFG REGED 3421 7797 461 236.3 11679

State SPED 338 7403 8491 198.8 16232

State REGED 18572 57827 7952 229.7 84351

8th Grade Math SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 5.6% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 43.1% 40% 23.0% 31.9% 48.7% 27.9% 42.0% 34.3% AP 7.1% 5.7%

43.5%
30% 20% 62.5% 39.2% 65.0%

71.3%

PP 10% 12.0% 0% District SPED District REGED Math AP P PP Mean n District SPED 4 23 45 186.2 72 DFG SPED District REGED 154 124 38 245.8 316 DFG REGED State SPED State REGED State REGED 28866 36265 19052 229.4 84183 14.5% 22.6%

DFG SPED DFG REGED State SPED 139 545 1269 184.3 1953 4903 5077 1693 238.8 11673 917 3720 11518 178.1 16155

HSPA LAL SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 6.8% 90% 26.6% 80% 70% 59.3% 60% 50% 40% 30% 54.6% 43.7% 33.9% 10% 0% District SPED 1.7% District REGED 2.1% DFG REGED 5.7% State SPED State REGED 29.4% PP 72.5% 67.4% 33.6% 53.8% 3.2% 2.5% 21.8% AP

71.3%

20%

DFG SPED

LAL AP P PP Mean n

District SPED 4 35 20 210.2 59

District REGED 99 161 5 242.7 295

DFG SPED 81 1698 740 208.9 2519

DFG REGED 4144 11108 327 238.8 15579

State SPED 363 7819 6351 198.4 14533

State REGED 17756 59050 4642 233.8 81448

HSPA Math SPED/REGED Comparison

100% 90% 28.1% 80% 70% 60% 50% 54.6% 40% 53.9% 30% 64.4% 56.9% 55.1% 67.3% P 30.5% 37.3% 38.3% 5.1% 4.8% 3.7% AP

35.0%

29.0%

20%
PP 10% 8.8% 0% District SPED District REGED DFG SPED DFG REGED State SPED State REGED 9.9% 17.3%

Math AP P PP Mean n

District SPED 3 18 38 192.3 59

District REGED 110 159 26 236.9 295

DFG SPED 121 962 1429 195.3 2512

DFG REGED 5452 8584 1542 235.9 15578

State SPED 536 4205 9759 187.4 14501

State REGED 22872 44482 14041 228.6 81395

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

New Jersey evaluates the academic progress being made to determine whether the progress toward the 2014 goal is adequate. If the schools special educated students score less than 100%
proficient on the states exams, the school (and all of its special education subgroups) must make adequate yearly progress or AYP in order to avoid state sanctions. NCLB spells out an array of consequences for schools and districts that repeatedly fail to meet their AYP goals. Any school that fails to achieve AYP for two consecutive years in the same subject area will be identified by the state as needing improvement. Initially, a school that does not make AYP for two consecutive years must, if possible, offer students the opportunity to transfer to another, higherperforming school within the district. After a third year, schools must offer supplemental services (such as tutoring) for students. Schools that do not show adequate progress after five years may be forced to take tough corrective action such as replacing school personnel or extending the school year.

Status Report: AYP

MOMS students are not making AYP for Language Arts Literacyeven though the schools students outperform the state average.
2008-2009
State Standard for AYP = 72% Proficient Students with Disabilities School District State 0% 0% 0.3%

Percent Not Tested

Proficiency Percentages Partial Proficient Advanced

47.9% 47.9% 60% 39.4% 39.4% 43.7%

50.2% 50.2% 38%

1.8% 1.8% 2.1%

Economically Disadvantaged

School District State

0% 0% 0.2%

51.4% 51.4% 53%

9.2% 9.2% 3.4%

The state standard for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for language arts literacy is 72% proficient for the school and each subgroup.
NOTE: The male, female, and migrant categories are not used in calculating AYP.
* For participation, an asterisk denotes less than 40 students in a subgroup. * For proficiency, an asterisk denotes less than 30 students in a subgroup.

The Challenge: Proficiency for All by 2014

MOMS students are not making AYP for Matheven though the schools students outperform the state average.
2008-2009 Proficiency Percentages Percent Not Tested Partial Proficient Advanced

State Standard for AYP = 61% Proficient Students with Disabilities School District State 0% 0% 0.5% 57.5% 57.5% 65.3% 36.1% 36.1% 28.3% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4%

Economically Disadvantaged

School District State

0% 0% 0.4%

47.7% 47.7% 48.4%

34.9% 34.9% 39.9%

17.4% 17.4% 11.7%

The state standard for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for mathematics is 61% proficient for the school and each subgroup.
NOTE: The male, female, and migrant categories are not used in calculating AYP.

The Challenge: Proficiency for All by 2014

MOHS students are not making AYP for Language Arts Literacyeven though the schools students outperform the state average.
2008-2009
State Standard for AYP = 85% Proficient Students with Disabilities School District State 0% 0% 0.9% 31.4% 31.4% 48.9% 66.7% 66.7% 48.6% 2% 2% 2.5%

Percent Not Tested

Proficiency Percentages Partial Proficient Advanced

Limited English Proficient Students

School District State

* * 0.6%

* * 60.5%

* * 39.3%

* * 0.2%

The state standard for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for language arts literacy is 85% proficient for the school and each subgroup.
NOTE: The male, female, and migrant categories are not used in calculating AYP.
* For participation, an asterisk denotes less than 40 students in a subgroup. * For proficiency, an asterisk denotes less than 30 students in a subgroup.

The Challenge: Proficiency for All by 2014

MOHS students are not making AYP for Matheven though the schools students outperform the state average.
2008-2009 Proficiency Percentages Percent Not Tested Partial Proficient Advanced

State Standard for AYP = 74% Proficient Students with Disabilities School District State 0% 0% 1.1% 58.8% 58.8% 61.8% 35.3% 35.3% 34.6% 5.9% 5.9% 3.6%

Limited English Proficient Students

School District State

* * 0.6%

* * 58.2%

* * 38.4%

* * 3.4%

The state standard for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for mathematics is 74% proficient for the school and each subgroup.
NOTE: The male, female, and migrant categories are not used in calculating AYP.
* For participation, an asterisk denotes less than 40 students in a subgroup.

AYP CONSEQUENCES
Year Status Interventions for Title I Schools

Year 1 Year 2

Early Warning Did not make AYP for one year First year of school in need of improvement status. Did not make AYP for two consecutive years in the same content area. Second year of school in need of improvement status. Did not make AYP for three consecutive years in the same content area. Third year of school in need of improvement status corrective action. Did not make AYP for four consecutive years in the same content area. Fourth year of school in need of improvement status school restructuring plan. Did not make AYP for five consecutive years in the same content area. Fifth year of school in need of improvement status implementation of restructuring plan. Did not make AYP for six consecutive years in the same content area.

None Parent notification, public school choice (or supplemental educational services), school improvement plan, technical assistance from district. Parent notification, public school choice, supplemental educational services, school improvement plan, technical assistance from district. Parent notification, public school choice, supplemental educational services, school improvement plan, technical assistance from district and state, corrective action, participation in CAPA. Parent notification, public school choice, supplemental educational services, school improvement plan, technical assistance from district and state, development of restructuring plan (governance). Parent notification, public school choice, supplemental educational services, school improvement plan, technical assistance from district and state, implementation of restructuring plan.

Year 3

MOHS is in the second year of not making AYP. MOMS is in Year one. The consequences
for missing AYP are noted here.

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6 and above

The Plan:

Redefine Success for Special Education

Due to NCLB rules, Mount Olives special education students are mandated to demonstrate proficiency on state exams. In raw
terms, proficient performances are those that produce a score of more than 200 on NJASK 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 11th grade examinations in language arts and math. New Jersey assesses science in grades 4 and 8 as well. Success has been defined through an Individualized Educational Plan (IE). The IEP is intended to be comprehensive and includes current performance measures for the child based on multiple tests and assessment methods and educational goals and objectives that define how problems will be addressed in the short and long term. In addition, the IEP includes a definition of how the child's progress will be measured on an ongoing basis, disciplinary methods to be implemented (especially for children with emotional and behavioral issues), and an individualized healthcare plan (IHP) for students also requiring special medical attention or medications .

The Plan:

Redefine Success for Special Education

Given the complexities of state and federal law, Mount Olive schools will define success the same way that the state of New Jersey does. A successful special education student is a student that can
score at least proficient on a state exam for his or her grade level. This changes everything: I propose that going forward; Mount Olive special education programming must have proficiency on the NJASK (or HSPA) as the starting point for academic goal setting. While progress in achieving proficiency should be celebrated and acknowledged, any result less than proficient should not be considered a long term acceptable outcome for the Mount Olive special education student.

The Plan:

Redefine Success for Special Education

The goal of the Mount Olive special education program is to equip students with the skills they need to receive information, interpret any nuances that may be present, and come to reasonable conclusions that explain and describe the information in a way that serves a specific purpose.

To enable such thinking, the Mount Olive educational programming must focus on learning, not adhering to federal or state rules, or simply striving to achieve a score.
While we understand that a test score represents a students level of learning, the score is not the end. It is the learning that we seek, not the score. To focus on learning, we must re-define what learning means; what success is.

Ramifications for Re-defining success

1. Students enrolled in Mount Olive Special Education programs would have a target number (gains for NJASK progress each year). 2. All instructional (academic) programming, of any sort, would be offered to produce the target gains noted through the IEP (in reading/language arts, and or math. 3. Internal benchmark assessments and other related progress indicators would be used (at least once per quarter) to determine directionality toward target acquisition. 4. To do so, quarterly assessment targets MUST be set 5. Gains for each child would be reported to all stakeholders. 6. If students miss targets, instructional tactics and strategies should alter and instruction shifted to meet future goals. 7. All special education resources would be brought to bear on hitting instructional targets. Program evaluation would depend upon progress.

Prompting Success: High Levels of Support

To guide the instructional plan, Mount Olive special education teachers will shift WHAT they teach to more fully align with the IEP goals (including state proficiency). Specifically, targeted
standards-based content should become the norm for special education students that drive proficient performances on the NJASK.

Special educated students would not have to complete all of the regular work in class and then complete their special education targeted instruction.
If (and only if) the child is proficient, should the childs educational program align with other regular educated students.

Prompting Success: Changes Needed

The special education teacher (not the regular ed. teacher) will have the responsibility to change childs instructional content, (based on the IEP). In class support teachers should work with the regular
classroom teacher to ALTER content in such a way as to support NJASK proficiencies. Four preliminary actions should be undertaken to ensure that the programming meets the ideals of this improvement initiative. 1. What must the student be able to know and be able to do to be considered successful? 2. What evidence can be produced to explain what the student knows? 3. How has the childs disability blocked the learning process? 4. An instructional program should be developed. The plan should consider the childs unique learning strengths, strategically targeting means and methods to deliver content. Further, the program should address only those content topics that promote proficiency on the grade level exam.

Logistical Support
School administrators need to know how special education students are progressing in real time. To do so, electronic systems that
can open access for all is required for success. To accomplish this goal, an electronic state-of-the-art software system known as IEP STUDENT TRACKER will be procured and deployed for the fall of 2011.
24-hour/7-day access for an unlimited number of authorized users from any computer connected to the web. Real-time sharing of IEPs and student data between school districts. Drafting and viewing of IEPs online promoting collaboration and helping to ensure compliance, not to mention highquality IEPs. Production of New Jersey and Federal compliance reports, accountability reports and unlimited customized reports all in minutes, all with a few clicks of the mouse. Library of customizable goals, objectives and benchmarks aligned to New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards, plus a custom narrative feature. Full access to student history data, along with seamless data conversion from other systems. Integration with student information systems

COST: $15 18K

Remedial Strategies and the Path to Special Education A growing concern is the increasing numbers of students being referred for special educational placement.
It is possible that some special education placements may have been avoided through more rigorous educational interventions. As a result, before identifying any child for special educational services or increasing any childs level of restrictiveness, it is imperative that every other (less intrusive and expensive) option has been tried. To maximize efficiencies in this regard, the Mount Olive schools provides a Response to Intervention action plan for each student identified for placement before the child is placed.

Response to Intervention RTI

Response To Intervention (commonly abbreviated RTI or RtI) is a method of academic intervention used in the United States which is designed to provide early, effective assistance to children who are having difficulty learning.

RTI seeks to prevent academic failure through early intervention, frequent progress measurement, and increasingly intensive research-based instructional interventions for children who continue to have difficulty.
Questions to consider when starting up an RTI for any child include:
Is the core program sufficient? If the core program is not sufficient, why isnt it? How will needs identified in the core be addressed?

For this purpose, early child special education placements should be made only after extraordinary review.

Remedial Strategies and the Path to Special Education

In RTI models, general education staff have the responsibility for examining student progress and achievement through a system designed to support student success and catch all students who experience trouble. In the RTI framework, student progress achievement is monitored very closely revealing a subset of students who are at risk for school failure.

RTI TIER 1
General Education* Provide scientifically based core instructional programs Support implementation of school-wide screening Monitor student progress through curriculum-based measurement (CBM) Use data to inform instructional decision-making; analyze progress monitoring results to determine which students are at risk and require more intense instructional support Participate in regular and rigorous professional Collaborate with designated teams/staff to formulate plans for at-risk students (i.e., students moving into Tier 2 and beyond and students who are referred to special education) Specialist/ Support Staff* Support implementation of school-wide screening to identify students who may be at risk Collaborate with general education to monitor student progress and assist in analyzing progress monitoring results to determine which students are at risk and require more intense instructional support Participate in regular and rigorous professional development Administration* Ensure that scientifically based core instructional programs are provided for the general education teachers Ensure implementation of a school-wide screening program Ensure progress monitoring of students, such as through curriculum-based measurement (CBM) Ensure that measures to monitor fidelity of Tier 1 interventions are in place Oversee analysis of the progress monitoring results to determine which students are at risk and require more intense instructional support

Remedial Strategies and the Path to Special Education

Tier 2 and beyond programming consists of general education instruction plus specialized intervention.

RTI Tier 2
General Education* Specialist/Support Staff* Administration*

Implement Tier 1 level instruction with fidelity Conduct progress monitoring of all students Evaluate and identify students as at risk and eligible for Tier 2 and beyond Provide Tier 2 and beyond interventions Continue progress monitoring within Tier 1 of students in Tier 2 and beyond for comparison of growth with supplementary instruction and when supplementary instruction is discontinued

Provide Tier 2 and beyond instruction to small groups Monitor progress of students within Tier 2 and beyond and analyze results for consideration of continuation of intervention, exit, or movement to increasingly intense levels of instruction Collaborate with general education teacher to understand the Tier 1 instructional program and provide instructional/supplemental activities that can be embedded within Tier 1 to provide additional support to targeted students Promote either a standard treatment protocol or problem-solving model consistently

Provide resources for Tier 2 and beyond, including appropriate reading intervention program, trained staff, system for progress monitoring in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 and beyond, and time for staff collaboration to make decisions about movement of students within the tiers Lead the problemsolving model approach

NEW for Tier 2

Mount Olive schools will employ an additional reading specialist for each Mount Olive elementary school for the fall of 2011. As reading interventions hold the most promise of reducing
special educational placements, more assistance in the development of strong reading skills, especially among delayed first and second grade readers may prove effective. Research shows that children who read well in the early grades are far more successful in later years; and those who fall behind often stay behind when it comes to academic achievement. COST: $260K

Remedial Strategies and the Path to Special Education

Tier 3 involves special education services.

Tier 3: Special Education

General Education* Implement Tier 1 level instruction with fidelity Conduct progress monitoring of all students, including those in special education Depending on a students IEP, provide appropriate accommodations or modifications for students in special education Specialist/Support Staff* Provide specially designed instruction to individuals or small groups Provide consultation regarding behavioral and instructional problems Provide expertise and guidance to parents, educators, and administrative faculty as members of the school-based support team Monitor progress of students within special education and analyze results for consideration of continuation of intervention, exit, or changes in intervention Collaborate with general education teacher to develop appropriate accommodations/modifications that can be embedded within Tier 1 to provide additional support to targeted students Administration* Develop and oversee school-based instructional support team efforts Provide a supportive school environment that encourages collaboration Provide continuing, highquality professional development to all instructional and support personnel Ensure adherence to timelines and cost controls Provide caseloads and schedules that facilitate individualized instruction, documentation of response to instruction, and collaboration among general and special educators, related services, and support personnel

Teaching Strategies for Special Education

Specific forms of special education instruction that have been found to be most effective in teaching students with learning
disabilities combine direct instruction with strategy instruction (Swanson, 1999). Swanson (1999) identified the main features of this model: 1. Control of task difficulty 2. Small-group instruction 3. Directed questioning and response

Special Ed. Staffing

Crafting a world-class special education program in the Mount Olive schools requires highly trained, highly motivated teachers.

Mount Olive schools will hire English and/or Math degreed and certified teachers to teach all special education resource room classes for MOMS and MOHS.
Going forward, all resource room vacancies would be filled with appropriately degreed and certified professionals.

The Special Education Fiscal Challenge:

Teachers, administrators and parents are motivated by a love of children and a passion to help. They have little love for cost-saving measures. Nonetheless,

cost effective programming is likely more effective because it allows the district to serve more children better.
While the system is among the largest in Morris County, enabling it to offer almost every special educational program available, almost $4 Million is spent educating children with disabilities in private settings. Going forward, an opportunities review for every special education student placed out of district will be undertaken, finding ways to bring students back to the district through new and enhanced services. This review will be conducted by the Director for Special Education with a full and comprehensive report to the Superintendent of Schools and School Board.

The Special Education Fiscal Challenge:

Rethink the role and schedule of paraprofessionals
Much of the growth of special education spending has come through so-called related services. In particular, Mount Olive Public Schools employs a literal army of teaching aides. Many times, these aides are specified to serve only one child at a time. Such a system of service is inefficient and unsustainable.

Mount Olive schools will retrain and re-equip classroom aides to provide the massive new infusion of basic skill tutoring needed for NJASK proficient performances. In
addition, we must stop making the assumption that classroom aides are for particular students. In addition, only in rare and extreme circumstances, and only after discussing the situation with the Superintendent, should a new aide be employed.

Reducing new referrals

Among the most effective program components to serve special education students, perhaps the most important is the notion of personalization.
Clearly, some students need special tutorials, individualized instruction, extra skill practice, or reinforcement of key concepts. Removing students from their classrooms to receive these supports, however, may not be necessary. If after addressing those questions, the team determines the learner would profit from the general education classroom experience, the following strategies can help educators provide personalized instruction in those inclusive environments: Co-Teaching, Station Teaching, Independent Instruction, Peer-Support, Study/Work Time .

Differentiated Programming
Software programs like Compass Learnings Odyssey or Time to Know not only diagnose student learning difficulties, but offer the Mount Olive schools new options; computer driven lessons that are aligned to specific, identified student needs. Such software learning activities are generally enhanced with grade-appropriate content, animations, and audio and video instruction.

All Mount Olive special education students receive at least some portion of the daily lessons through technological programming as soon as next year.
Costs: Compass Learning Software K-5 Language Arts K-5 Math 6 8 Language Arts $69,000

Seeing it Through
Management of such a comprehensive reform effort requires more administrative attention than we presently have available.
To see the program successful, a project manager to oversee the ongoing operations of the plan will be hired. Such a person would report directly to Superintendent (or his designee) and be available from August 1 to June 30, 2012.