Jamestown School Department Special Education Budget Proposal 2005 - 2006

GO PATS!

School Committee Goals 2004-2005 1. To provide to all students a rigorous academic program and to explore ways to heighten student challenge and remove performance “ceilings”.

District Mission Statement “The Jamestown School District seeks to partner with the community to provide a safe, nurturing leaning environment in which each child is challenged to fulfilled his/her unique potential.”

Goal of Jamestown Special Education To implement researched based practices regarding effective teaching practices, service delivery models, and evaluations that improve educational performance and enhance life long outcomes.

Lifelong Learners The National Longitudinal Transition Study (over 8000 children age 13-21) Finding: Time spent in general education classrooms was positively related to employment and community participation. Higher earnings were also positively related to time spent in the general classroom.

New Guidelines • Moving to a problem solving model rather than a wait to fail model • Consultation between teacher and parent • Consultation with other resources-adding members to the child’s instructional team to evaluate interventions-data collected from naturally occurring sources

New Guidelines • Consultation with Extended Problem Solving Team • Ongoing systemic data collection, treatment integrity, data analysis to determine rate of progress • Determine need to consider entitlement for special education • Team Develops IEP

Why?

• Earlier rather than later Prevention and early intervention are supremely more effective and efficient than later intervention and remediation for ensuring reading success AVOID A WAIT TO FAIL MODEL Tilly, 2003

Expand the Circle of Support • Building a systemic support system for students to prevent reading failure • Provide intervention for struggling readers with targeted, strategic, and intensive intervention they require

Intensive Intervention Targeted Strategic Interventions Comprehensive Literacy Framework School Wide Focus

Elements of an Effective Model 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Set goals Reliable assessment system Research proven materials Prioritize instructional time and instructional intensity by using our resources creatively Differentiate instruction Professional development to sustain instructional leaders

Classroom Teachers are the Key • Teacher screens all students at the beginning of the year for reading proficiency • Teacher provides differentiated comprehensive reading instruction • Teacher informs principal (instructional leader) of students needing diagnostic assessment • Teacher informs parent

Schools-Not Just Programs • Intervention must occur at the school level • Teachers are more likely to affect success than the adoption of any program » Tilly, 2003

Responsibilities of the District • Provide rigorous comprehensive literacy curriculum that includes: – Reading (Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary Development, Fluency and Comprehension) – Listening – Speaking – Writing

Responsibilities of the District • Strong instructional leaders to sustain the work • Integrated system of research-based professional development and resource allocation • Prioritize Instructional Time • Excellent assessment system to inform, guide and validate

Responsibilities of the District Differentiating Instruction (personal learning plans) Change Content Change Process Change Product Tomilson

Goals of the Special Education Budget

Continued Commitment to:

• High quality supports • Educationally sound fiscal recommendations • Cost containment where possible

Special Education Budget High School Tuition • 24 Students currently attend high school with support • Increase of 6 children projected for 2005 • Account number is: – 32221 6372

Out of District Tuition • 12 Children attend out of district special schools • Account numbers are: – 32205 6372 – 32209 6372 – 32218 6372

Out of District Placements • Small class size permits transition back and prevents referral out • More cost effective • Co-Teaching

Out of District Placements

Notable Decreases:

• 20% reduction in number of students placed out of district.

•

Why?

Capacity to deliver instructional programs with high intensity and low student teacher ratios • Example 3 rd and 4 th grade Co-Teaching

230 Day Supports • These children have extensive needs including medical, communicative, behavioral, physical, cognitive, social and sensory. Personnel work with parents as a team to provide integrated programming. These children require unique consistent rigorous intensive instruction

ASD 1995-2004

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ASD

230 Day Supports • These children can learn when they are engaged constantly and consistently in the teaching and learning process

230 Day Cost Analysis •

In District Program

• Teacher and Teacher assistant salary and benefits = $121,204 • Set up for new classroom = $2,500

Total Cost = $123,704

•

Out of District Program

• Each Tuition = $72,000 • Teacher assistant salary = $25,000 • Transportation = $57,000 – If children attend the same school • School Year 2005 – 2006 3 students

Total Cost = $298,000

In District 230 Day Program

Total Cost Savings $ 174,296

District Operating Costs

12000000 10000000 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 General Operating Budget Special Education Budget

District Operating Costs Year 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 Special Education Budget General Operating Budget Percent of the Budget $1,465,207 $1,583,883 $7,607,444 16.14% $8,067,443 16.14% $1,674,943 $8,645,274 16.22%

Special Education Budget Summary 2005 - 2006 • Level funded numerous accounts • Renegotiated a reduction in contract service cost • Reduction in private school costs • Increase in number of evaluations

Requested increase of

5.75%

Special Education Budget Cautions • The current tuition includes only the children we have in programs currently • No contingency is factored into this budget proposal • It is likely that unanticipated costs will be incurred by the district • Reauthorization of Federal Law, IDEA 2005 implementation

REACTIVE CREATIVE

Notice they are the same word. Only the “C” has been moved. When You “C” things correctly, you become creative rather than reactive.

-Walsch

T H A N K Y O U J E S I S C A