For further information: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home

• General Information

• Project Chairperson(s):  
• Chad Chapin                                                           

Laura Delagrange
Jeffrey Timm

• Committee Members:  Susan Barbee, Patricia Buckholz, Jacqueline Brownell, Christine Christensen, Sally Flaschberger, Alyson Eisch, Renee Goff, Traci Joslyn, Peter Knotek, Michelle Kupper, Ben Lake, Kameron Marshall, Gina McCarthy, Gail Petersen, Paula Rowland, Anne Swanson, Carol Swenson, Doris Szejna, Ann Widmar, Jeff Weiss, Aaron Eick, Ann Flegel, Tim Degroot, Les Hunt, Marnie Langlois, Karen Olson, Qyla Person, Cathy Stephke

  

• Racine Unified School District

• Special Education Department

• Date Submitted:  June 15, 2009

• Study Idea:  The purpose of the study was to review the current district practices, the latest literature and most updated special education law to evaluate and give recommendations on improving special education services throughout the district by way of inclusion, alignment of curriculum and differentiation of instruction.  Therefore, leading to the implementation of inclusive practices in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for students with disabilities.  An overall goal was also established to initiate inclusion in the schools throughout the Racine Unified School District for the continuum of grades 1-12.     

• Recommended Date for Implementation:

Short Term Goals:
In August 2009 inclusion will be implemented in grades 1 and 2 in all elementary schools in the District.  Professional development activities will be provided in the summer and fall of 2009 in the areas of inclusion, differentiation of instruction, and co-teaching.

            Long Term Goals:

            Extend implementation of inclusion to other grades as follows:

August 2010 – Inclusive practices will be implemented in grade 3.

August 2011 – Inclusive practices will be implemented in grades 4 and 5.

August 2012 – Inclusive practices will be implemented in grade 6.

August 2013 – Inclusive practices will be implemented in grades 7 and 8.

Beginning the summer of 2011, professional development will be provided to high school personnel to prepare them to implement inclusive practices after inclusive practices have been implemented in the middle schools.  It is anticipated that by the time high schools implement inclusive practices, students with disabilities will have been included in general education classes in elementary and middle schools.

• Introduction

1. General background for need of study

Since 1975, special education law has required that all students with disabilities be placed in the least restrictive environment by the IEP team based on the individual needs of the student.  In 2004 IDEA placed a stronger emphasis on use of the least restrictive environment.

State law also reflects the requirement to educate students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.  Wisconsin Statute 115.78 states that the local educational agency will ensure the following:

• Unless the IEP requires a different arrangement, the child is educated in the school he or she would attend if not disabled.
• The placement is provided as close as possible to the child’s home.
• In selecting the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services that he or she needs.
• A child with a disability is not removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum.
• To the maximum extent appropriate, a child with a disability, including a child receiving publicly funded special education in a public or private institution or other care facility, is educated with children who are not disabled.
• Special classes, separate schooling or any other removal of a child from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of a child’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
• The local educational agency ensures a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services.
• The Local Educational Agency (LEA) ensures a continuum of alternative placements is available and will be used that includes instruction in regular classes, special classes special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.
• The continuum makes provisions for supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction) that are provided in conjunction with regular class placement.
• The local educational agency provides or arranges for nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities including meals and recess periods so each child with a disability participates with non-disabled children in the extracurricular services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. The local Educational Agency ensures that each child with a disability has the supplementary aids and services determined by the child’s IEP Team to be appropriate and necessary for the child to participate in non-academic settings.

In January 2006, the Independent Commission reported to the Board of Education (BOE) on numerous issues, including the area of special education.  A number of recommendations were made.  In order to fulfill the recommendation #6 of the Findings Report, the Commission determined that the following tasks are needed:

The District needs to create a task force to examine and revitalize its special education delivery model to better align resources with needs.

Teachers, parents, outside experts, and internal special education managers should work together in a multi-stakeholder committee to review thoroughly the District’s current practices, to explore best practice models nationwide, and to formulate a new approach for special education in Racine.

An outgrowth of the work done by the Commission was the Board of Education’s decision in 2006 to commission Dr. Elise Frattura to embark on a study of the status of special education services in the district.  In August 2007, the report was presented to the Board of Education.  Dr. Frattura’s report included twenty-three recommendations, which were based on analysis of data that she had collected through review of records and interviews with staff members. 

One of those recommendations was to reduce over-dependence on segregated environments.  This over-dependence on the use of segregated environments is in direct conflict with federal and state statutes that require that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment.  The report stated “Two primary concerns are: 1) the ownership of these children with disabilities, and 2) the perception that special education is an isolated place not a service.  Best practice clearly supports that all means all.  Every means every child – which means all children must be a shared responsibility of all educators.  Secondly, based on the references offered in the section on Best Practices, it is unmistakable that educators must consider their values regarding segregated education” (Frattura, 2006).

The report contained the following recommendations related to Least Restrictive Environment.

• Location of services defines a child’s education.  All students with disabilities should attend the schools they would attend if not disabled.
• Students with disabilities will have access to rooms and facilities within each school that is commensurate to those of their non-disabled peers when they require small group or 1:1 instructional time.
• Each child with a disability should be placed in the age-appropriate classroom they would attend if not disabled – the percent of time each child spends in large group, small group and 1:1 instruction is defined by his/her IEP goals.

Current district practices:  When four-year-old kindergarten was initiated in the fall of
2006, inclusive classes were initiated.  The model selected placed 15 general education students and 7 students with disabilities in one classroom with one general education teacher and one special education early childhood teacher.  This model is fully inclusive with both teachers working within a co-teaching model.  Both teachers are responsible for collaborating to develop lesson plans, teach all students, and manage all aspects of classroom operations including student behaviors.  They both are working collaboratively the entire day.  There are currently seven fully included four-year-old classes across the district.

Two fully included kindergarten classes have been in operation for a number of years at Red Apple School.  In the fall of 2008, this model was implemented in six special needs kindergarten classrooms.  Another class will be added in the fall of 2009.

Further, in the fall of 2008 fully inclusive three-year-old classes were created by including students with disabilities in P-COC classes at Red Apple School.  One class is fully included.  Some students with disabilities are included in two other classrooms as required by each student’s IEP.

Based on anecdotal reports from teachers and parents, the model has been successful with these age groups.  Teachers report that students with disabilities have made gains beyond the expectations based on the IEPs in pre-academic skills, academic skills, language development and social skills.  It has also been reported that general education students have accepted their handicapped peers and are actively involved in including them in activities and helping them when assistance is needed.

2. Purpose of the study

Since students with disabilities have been successfully included in kindergarten classrooms, teachers and parents have posed the following question: How do we continue to provide successful inclusive practices as the students progress through their education? 

The next step is to develop inclusion opportunities in grades 1 and 2 based on the needs of students with disabilities as described in their IEPs.  Therefore, the purpose of the study was to determine ways in which the Least Restrictive Environment can be established for each student with a disability in grades 1 through 12.  This would result in inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms to the maximum extent possible based on each student’s IEP as required by IDEA.

3. Assumptions underlying the study

Kathleen Kryza states in her book Practical Co-Teaching Strategies:  Effective Strategies for Working Together in Today’s Inclusive Classroom (Grades 1-12): 

“Change is needed:  Many educational experts note that pull-out programs do not adequately prepare disabled children for their post-secondary experiences.  Recent federal court cases have reflected this emerging philosophy, and inclusion advocacy, has become increasingly aggressive and litigious.

The best avenue to prevent LRE litigation is to allow disabled children at least a chance in the regular classroom before concluding that the child cannot be served there.  Inclusion is not about “dumping” kids in regular classes; it is about providing the support services to both teacher and student that may be necessary for the child to succeed in the regular classroom.  There are too many children in resource and self-contained classes that could be served in regular classes with some effort, training and planning.

The trend towards more inclusive programming is creating increased emphasis on modifications in regular classroom settings.  Regular teachers are being asked to be more creative, efficient and consistent in implementing modifications that will allow for successful placement in regular classes.”
(2008, p.4).

4. Definition of terms

Co-Teaching:  When two (or more) educators or other certified staff, contract to share instructional responsibility for a single group of students primarily in a single classroom or workspace for teaching specific content objectives.  Though each individual’s level of participation may vary, they have mutual ownership, pooled resources and joint accountability.  Co-teaching is not the same as collaboration, team teaching or inclusion.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The federal law governing the education of children with disabilities.  IDEA and its regulations define LRE and require that all states demonstrate they have policies and procedures in place to guarantee they meet with federal LRE requirements.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE):  The definition of LRE in the individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is:  “To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public and private institutions or other care facilities, are (1) educated with children who are not disabled, and (2) special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactory.

Continuum of Services:  The law, IDEA, requires that each school district ensure that there is a “continuum of alternative placements” available to meet the needs of students with disabilities.  Emphasis should be placed on the provision of services, and not the specific placements themselves.  This “continuum” must include general education classes, special education classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals or institutions.
(Kryza, 2008 p. 4).

Inclusion:  Inclusion is a term, which expresses commitment to educate every child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend.  It involves bringing the services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students). 
(Combined Workgroup ‘09).

Types of Co-Teaching/Collaboration:  1-One lead, one support: one teacher serves as lead teacher the other teacher provides support to lead teacher; 2-Station teaching: lesson content is divided between both teachers, instruction of students is shared but each teacher has separate responsibilities; 3-Parallel teaching: same content is presented by each teacher to small heterogeneous groups, each teacher delivers instruction to half the class; 4-Alternative teaching: one large group, one small (may or may not include students with disabilities) before class, at the beginning of class, or at the end; in small group, one teacher pre-teaches, reinforces or re-teaches information to students or can also be used to provide enrichment to a group of students who are read to move forward with the content; 5-Team teaching: instruction is shared by both teachers, activities are coordinated into one lesson, there is mutual trust and commitment to the content and the learners.                                                                                        
(Dieker, 2007 p.63).

• Procedures

1. Review of the literature

During the course of the study, the multi-stakeholder work group reviewed the Frattura Report and gathered information about least restrictive environment and inclusive practices by reading and discussing articles and books and by visiting schools in the Racine Unified School District to determine what may already be in place and working.

2. Methodology

After the Frattura Report was finalized, work groups were assembled to study various recommendations from the report.  Members were selected from the following groups:  general education teachers, special education teachers, school administrators, advocacy groups such as ARC and Disabilities Rights of Wisconsin, and parents of students with disabilities.  Work groups were formed to examine the following topics and to make recommendations about implementation:  inclusion, curriculum and instruction, decentralization of the referral process, creation of a procedural manual, and creation of building level teams to guide processes related to SST teams and ensuring implementation of IEPs for students with disabilities.

The inclusion work group was given the charge of studying recommendations 1, 12 and 16 from the Frattura Report to examine the topic of integration of special education students in general education classes and to make recommendations for implementation of inclusive practices.

The curriculum and instruction work group was given the charge of studying recommendations 2 and 13 from the Frattura Report to examine the issues related to curriculum and instruction which would arise from integrating students with disabilities in general education classes.

Since both groups arrived at similar conclusions and made similar recommendations at the end of the 2007-08 school year, the two groups were merged into one group.  Their combined goal was to implement inclusion through the use of the general education curriculum with differentiation of instruction.

Survey:  On March 10, 2009, a survey was sent to principals through Groupwise e-mail to assess the extent to which schools in the district were currently using inclusive practices in grades 1 – 12.  A copy of the survey can be found in the appendix.  Responses of the three building levels (elementary, middle, and high school) are broken down within. 

Six of twenty-one elementary principals responded to the survey. Responses included the following.  Twenty-seven early childhood students are being included in co-taught classes at the REEC Center. Some students in one school are being included in social studies, science, reading and math classes; students in grades 2,3,4 and 5 are being taught in co-taught or team-taught classes; some students in grades 1 and 2 are fully included.  One school reported that teachers are using partial and full inclusion in all academic areas, including specialist and non-academic activities such as lunch, recess and assemblies.  The same school reported that four students were fully included along with students who receive speech and language services.  One principal indicated that the school has a hodge-podge of inclusive practices with SNK being fully included with 15 regular education and 9 SNK.  In that building SNK is fully included, and next year two primary cross-categorical teachers will be placed in one first-grade class and in one second-grade class. In this school all students with disabilities are fully included.  Another principal reported that inclusion is used for almost all students in the cross categorical rooms during art, music, and physical education.  They are also included in social studies, health and science.   This principal responded that no co-teaching or team-teaching is used, and that educational aides are in classes at the second through 5th grade on an as needed basis.  Another principal reported that the response depends on what the meaning of inclusion is from the person responding.  Most staff think of inclusion as mainstreaming in the areas of art, music, library, PE, science and social studies (lunch and recess as well).  The kind of inclusion used is the Mainstreaming Model in specialist areas, science and social studies.  No co-teaching or team-teaching is used; however, some staff do some team planning together (ex: Adaptive PE with regular PE and Grade 4 regular ed teacher and cross-categorical teacher for health class).

The findings indicate that the principals believe that inclusive practices are being implemented to varying degrees across those schools that responded. Schools with inclusive kindergarten classes indicated that inclusion is being used in 4K and 5K.  Some schools indicated that some inclusion is being used for specific students, but not as a common practice for many students with disabilities.  Some schools indicated that most of the students are being taught with a co-teaching model with many grade levels.  Some schools reported that students who receive speech and language services only are fully included.

When asked if teachers in your building expressed opinions about inclusion.  Most principals answered yes with no explanation about the content of those opinions.  Another question asked if teachers expressed fears about inclusion.  Most principals responded yes without further explanation about the content of the responses.  When asked what kinds of supports would be needed to have teachers and students to engage in inclusion, principals responded with in-service/professional development, more training, more staff, principal’s personal support, REA Support, etc.  One principal responded that professional development would be needed in the following areas:  behavior management, understanding the IEP process, instruction, flexible grouping, reasons why full inclusion works, and appropriate staffing. 

Two of five middle school principals responded to the survey.  One principal stated that co-teaching/team-teaching is being used at grades 6 through 8.  He stated that special education students are included in all electives as much as possible.  He indicated that approximately 130 students with disabilities in the areas of SLD, HI, EBD, SP/L, and OHI are being included in regular education classes.  He indicated that supports needed by teachers to use inclusion are SST, Counselors, psychologists and to include all of the support staff.  He went on to say that teachers have expressed opinions and also fears related to inclusion.  He responded to the question about the kinds of supports teachers would need with the following:  need for staff development in RtI, differentiation of instruction, eliminate the myth of inclusion and modifications needed.  Another principal reported: we currently have 24 co-taught with 11 special ed classes (4 of which are study skills/social skills for additional help).  In addition to the above we have a CD teacher (11 students in and out) and a STARS teacher with 9 that are always in a state of transition).  We are using full inclusion with help during study centers or study skills elective classes.  Co-teaching is used in all core classes, and daily check-ups in some classes (teachers use their prep for this).  We offer all core classes in all grade levels as co-taught classes math, English, social studies, science and literacy. Five students are fully included with only monitoring help ¾ of our students are in combination of co-taught and non-supported classes. All special ed students are included with the exception of 5 of 8 students in the STARS room that are not currently in the process of being transitioned out and students currently not at a level that they would be capable of taking the WKCE (lower CD students) these students are fully included in electives, however not in core academics.

The findings indicate that principals who responded believe that inclusion is being used in their schools.  They have different methods of including students in the two schools.  There seems to be more consistency between these two schools with an understanding of inclusion than at the elementary level.

Principals of two of the three comprehensive high schools responded to the survey.  One principal responded that inclusion is being used based on the IEPs.  Team Taught classes are offered for students who need a little more support, and regular education classes for those who are better equipped for full inclusion.  Students are in co-taught or team-taught classes in English, science, and social studies at the present time, and plans for team-taught math are in the works for next year.  Co-taught or team-taught classes are offered in English at grades 10 and 12, sociology in grades 11 and 12, US History in grade 9, world history in grade 10, science in grades 9 through 12 and FACE, business and tech ed survey.  The other principal stated that team-taught, CD students participate in elective courses and that co-taught/team taught classes are offered in grades 9-12.  Students with disabilities in the areas of OHI, SLD, EBD, and HI are included.

Both principals indicated that co-taught/team-taught classes are being used based on the individual IEPs of students.  Both principals indicated that teachers had expressed opinions about inclusion.  The principal at Park High School stated that teachers had expressed fears related to inclusion, while Case High School indicated that teachers had not expressed fear about inclusion.  Responses to the questions about the supports needed to implement inclusion included the following:  continuation of current support, more educational assistants to facilitate inclusion for CD students, maintain as much staff as possible to allow for more team taught classes, training in team teaching to help our staff members understand duties of both regular and special education teachers.

(Survey document in appendix)

Meetings with elementary principals:  Ann Laing held two group meetings with elementary principals on April 6 and on April 23 to inform them of the inclusive practices that are already in place at the early childhood level and to provide information to them about plans to implement inclusive practices in grades 1 and 2 in the fall of 2009.  They were given a written document that provided a definition of inclusion from the work group report, a summary of current practices in early childhood, and a description of inclusive practices that could be used (document in appendix). Principals were also informed about professional development in the areas of data teams, inclusive practices, development of common language co-teaching (team-teaching), and differentiation of instruction, which will be scheduled in the summer and fall of 2009.  At the end of this meeting, principals were asked to go back to their schools and talk with first and second grade teachers about inclusion and what would be needed to use inclusive practices in their buildings.

Individual meetings followed these two group meetings with principals from 18 elementary schools.  Since Bull Fine Arts and Jefferson Lighthouse have few students with disabilities and the students are already being included, no individual meeting was scheduled with them. The principal of Giese Elementary was not scheduled for an individual meeting because they have already embarked on inclusion and have adequate staff for the 2009-10 school year. During these meetings, principals were asked what it would take begin to implement inclusive practices in grades 1 and 2 in the fall of 2009.  Principals talked about staff development and the need for additional staff.  Seventeen of the principals stated that they would need another teacher and another educational assistant to be able to implement inclusion.  Principals were told that an article about inclusion authored by George Theoharis and a document about professional development that would be provided by Dr. William Bender were being sent to the buildings and that they should share these documents with staff members.

Of the principals who attended the individual meetings, they indicated that there is a need to add 12.5 cross-categorical teachers and 10 educational assistants to support implementation of inclusive practices in grades 1 and 2 in their schools.

• Results of the Findings

The work group found that there were isolated classrooms and teachers who were implementing inclusive practices in the District.  However, most students with disabilities are being educated in isolated settings within the schools.  The isolated settings include resource rooms and self-contained rooms for major portions of students’ instruction if not all.  In most situations inclusion is thought of as practices that include students with their same age/grade peers during lunch, recess, and specialist classes.

Results of the survey about inclusion match the observations made by members of the work group when they visited schools. The observations and the study indicate that there are isolated examples of inclusive practices being used in some schools.  Although many principals responded, “yes” that inclusion was happening it was evident in their responses that a true understanding of inclusion was lacking. Very little identified honest co-teaching and collaborative practices.  A general common language and interpretation was missing.  Further, analyzing the results of the survey showed that at all levels the teams found glaring similarities in responses, not only regarding lacking a common language.  Other overlapping areas of concern centered on staffing issues and scheduling. It also indicated a need for extensive professional development to help teachers and principals gain insight, motivation and skills to implement inclusive practices.

• Conclusions and Implications

 

1. Conclusion

In conclusion, the work done by the workgroups was extensive, thorough and well discussed.  This process has taken two years and is ongoing.  Although the study is near completion, the development of inclusive practices in RUSD is in the infancy stages and requires continual reevaluation and discussion by a variety of stakeholders.  Both the Curriculum and Instruction and the Inclusion workgroups identified similar recommendations that were merged into one document.  This is not the ending point but a mere jumping off point to begin inclusive practices.  It is important to note that there are already pockets of excellence throughout the district, which exemplify the ideals and recommendations presented by the combined workgroup.  Those groups of highly collaborative individuals and the recommendation document should be used as tools and examples to help guide us on our way to becoming a district that values and prides itself on differentiating and including our students to the highest levels of success possible. 

That being said, the district and the workgroup have a lot of work yet to be done.  In discussions with colleagues who were not in participation of the workgroups it has become increasingly apparent that there is a need for ongoing professional development.  All staff members must have a well defined, common understanding of least restrictive environment, what it means to be inclusive, the various types of co-teaching to facilitate inclusion, and how to best implement such practices in each building at each grade level. 

Of all the research, discussions, surveys and investigations throughout the district, the workgroup noted several areas of overlapping issues.  These issues included concerns about staffing needs, scheduling, alignment of curriculum starting at the elementary level and continuing through the high school level, professional development, materials, and accessibility for all students.  These areas are outlined and described in detail in the document created by the combined workgroups (found in appendix). 

2. Implications

The implications for inclusion are massive.  They affect central office philosophy, administration, teachers, students, parents, and advocates.  The positive implications far outweigh the negative, albeit requiring much work on the part of all stakeholders.  The bottom line is that this movement towards inclusion will be ongoing, will take patience, will require education and thoughtful dialogue between stakeholders, will identify areas of strength and areas in need of improvement and will affect the basic way we do business.  The unfortunate issue is that we’ve gone so long segregating our students with disabilities, any disability, that segregation and pullout services have become the common practice.  In reality, this is the exact opposite of what should have been done all along.  In keeping with LRE and IDEA, we need to shift our focus to starting services in the general education classroom with the regular education curriculum and provide accommodations/modifications necessary to meet the needs of students.   As a district, we need to unite to preserve and honor true least restrictive environment for each individual student as defined by IDEA and individual IEPs.

Inclusion will affect everyone starting from the top down.  Buy-in at the uppermost levels is essential.  Dieker states that the role of the administrator is vital and is to “support the collaborative process and empower teachers” (2007, p. 60).  Administrators do this by scheduling around the needs of the special education students first, by providing common planning time and fostering honest and open lines of communication.  Further, administrators “must have a basic sense of this [co-teaching and inclusive] practice and what must occur in this service delivery model” (p. 60). Professional development at this level should commence immediately to ensure that staffing requirements and scheduling for inclusive classes happens prior to the start of a new school year.

There are a multitude of implications for the teachers.  First, an equal and collaborative relationship must be established with the teachers planning on co-teaching or providing inclusion.  Dieker states, “in strong inclusive education where co-teaching is embraced, the general and special education teachers are comfortable with each other and with their classroom roles” (as cited in Dieker, 2007 p. 60).  Further, an environment needs to be established where the “students see the roles of the teachers as equal, yet specific needs of students are clearly met” (p. 60).  This type of relationship does not happen over night.  It must be cultivated, routinely assessed, and allowed flexibility.  That being said, without support from administration or adequate preparation or planning time provided to promote and maintain these relationships, co-teaching and inclusion will not be successful.  An understanding of the types of co-teaching must be had by all parties involved in addition to the fluidity between the types for each lesson for each day.  All of this boils down to a common language, a mutual respect, and a strong desire to meet the needs of all students.

There are implications for students as well.  Students will be more positively engaged within the regular curriculum, with the necessary accommodations and modifications, to meet their needs.  The stigma of being removed from the classroom is eradicated.  The “at-risk” and “grey area” students receive supports they may otherwise not have been afforded.  Special education students will be less likely to resort to learned helplessness with regards to their education, meaning they will be more likely to try things without the safety net of a small group or teacher pointing out the answers.  Students are then given the opportunity to develop and identify their own strengths individually and with other peers, both regular and special education.  While all these implications have both pros and cons for students, the sooner we allow students to take ownership and leadership of their own education, the less dependent they will become on other crutches that may not have been necessary to begin with (i.e., resource room for academic subjects in pull-out all day). 

The parents are another group that need to be considered and represented.  They are the students’ first teachers and best advocates.  A strong relationship should be built with parents, students and teachers to best support the students within inclusive practices.  Communication must be open and honest.  In addition, a forum for idea sharing should be provided.

Finally, overall implications for the district include a shift in philosophy.  The idea that special education is a service, not a place and that we educate all students to succeed must not be lip service.  Including all students to the extent both the law and IEPs dictate is imperative to the backing of the district’s slogan.  This impacts staffing requirements, ongoing professional development, materials, and the costs that accompany them.  

3. Recommendations

Recommendations presented by the RUSD Combined Curriculum and Instruction/Inclusion Workgroup include ten recommendations about staff ratios that would be needed to implement inclusive practices to meet the needs of students with disabilities.  Those recommendations include the following:

• Ratio of Special Education vs. regular ed students per classroom
• Collaborative Teaching approach in all grade levels, in all academic areas and in all buildings with collaborative planning time built in
• To ensure a successful teaching environment Collaborative Teaching may occur in any of the following ways
• Team teaching
• Parallel teaching
• Alternative teaching
• Station teaching
• One lead, one support
• Staffing per grade level
• Elementary

One special education collaborative teacher per grade level  Collaborative teaching classrooms will not go above 3:1 ratio – if school enrollment of special ed students go above this ratio per grade level, another collaborative teaching classroom will be added.
One assistant per grade level adjusted per the above circumstance.

• Middle

Two collaborative classrooms per team with an additional resource room
One assistant per content area per grade level
Additional classrooms as needed for EBD, CD, CDS, OI

• High School

Driven by ratio criteria listed above
Collaborative teach in one classroom per period
Content area teachers scheduled into resource rooms

• Case managers must have regular contact with students on caseloads
• Additional support area collaboratively taught classes
• Self-contained classroom – a self-contained special education classroom will be created that is available to all students with an IEP that indicates the classroom is the least restrictive environment for the individual student.
• Addition of alternate programs
• Special Education support staff per cluster
• Parent liaison per cluster using common language and providing training on different topics pertaining to special ed

Details of the recommendations are in the final report in the appendix.

4. Costs associated with implementation

Costs of implementation of inclusive practices in grades 1 through 12 include addition of teachers and educational assistants; professional development in the areas of inclusion, co-teaching and collaboration, differentiation of instruction, consultants to provide support to teachers and principals during the implementation phase; and addition of teachers to provide coaching to classroom teachers.  There are also costs related to providing appropriate teaching materials to foster student progress toward the IEP goals.

For the 2009-10 implementation in grades 1 and 2, the District will need to employ 12.5 additional cross-categorical teachers to provide one teacher per grade level in the primary grades to ensure that all students have opportunities to be included based on the provisions of their IEPs.  It is recommended that the District also needs to employ 10 additional educational assistants to provide support to students in the general education classroom setting after the content, concepts and skills have been taught by a teacher.

For the 2010-11 implementation in grade 3 there may be no need to employ additional teachers or assistants because the primary grades will be staffed adequately, and the number of educational assistants should be adequate to cover all primary classes.  However, there may be a need to provide additional instructional materials and/or technology to support learning.

Implementation of inclusion in grades 4 and 5 will require a review of staffing across all grades.  There may be a need to employ additional teachers and assistants in some schools to provide one teacher per grade level to provide for all of the needs of all students with disabilities in an inclusive setting.  There may also be a need to employ additional assistants.  This need will have to be assessed during the 2010-11 school year by meeting with principals to ascertain the need at each elementary school.

During the 2011-12 school year, it will be necessary to meet with middle school principals to determine the number of additional staff needed to implement inclusive practices in grade 6.  It will also have to be determined whether there is a need for additional instructional materials and/or technology to support learning.

Costs for 2009-10
Personnel
Average salaries and benefits for teachers for 2009-10 are:

For 12.5 teachers the total salaries are:  $1,075,425 based on the average salary and benefits.

Average salaries and benefits for educational assistants for 2009-10 are:

For 10 educational assistants the total salaries are $412,470.

The total cost of salaries and benefits for personnel is $1,487,895.
The cost of salaries and benefits over a two-year period which would include 2009-10 and 2010-11, is projected to be $2,975,790.  This cost could be covered by ARRA funds of $2.7 million; however, this falls $300,000 short of the total cost.

Instructional Materials
Teachers at each school have the option of requesting materials that are needed to supplement the adopted curriculum to insure students’ success.

Technology
A survey of teachers is being completed to obtain input about hardware and software that may be needed to enhance instructional practices.

Professional development and reference materials for teachers:  Both general education and special education teachers involved in implementing inclusion will have to participate in these workshops.

Institute presented by Dr. William Bender in July and in the fall.  Two-day Institute about Differentiation of Instruction presented by Dr. William Bender
This workshop is being presented in cooperation with CESA I.  Racine’s cost is $2600.
This workshop will be scheduled a second time in the fall.  Racine’s cost will be $5200.

Institute about Inclusion presented by Dr. Julie Causton-Theoharis.  The two-day workshop will be presented in cooperation with CESA I.  Racine’s cost is $3500.  There will be an additional cost for Dr. Causton-Theoharis to provide consultation to the District during the first year of implementation of inclusion.

Holding the institutes during the summer will require paying teachers their daily rate to attend.  The average hourly rate used to calculate daily rate is $30.  These costs could be covered by Title IIa funds.

Holding the institutes during the summer will require paying for substitute teachers.  These costs could also be covered by Title IIa funds

Syracuse University:  Institute presented by Julie Causton-Theoharis at Syracuse University for a core group of participants to include 2 special education administrators, 3 principals, 2 teacher representatives from the combined group, and 3 other teachers who may be chosen from the elementary, the middle school and the high school levels, as well as 1 educational assistant.  The REA will assist in choosing teachers to participate.  This group of people will form a core-team of internal resources to assist with implementation of inclusive practices.

Additional costs are:  Daily Rate for Teachers, Associate Principals, and negotiated daily rate for Educational Assistants.

The funds related to adding professional and para-professional staff could come from the Federal Stimulus package.  The funds related to professional development could come from the Title I stimulus package.

5. Evaluation of Success

The Standards, Assessment, & Accountability will assist with the use of MAP data to show progress in reading and math for students who have been included.
Progress monitoring will be used to assess progress at the classroom level.

References

Dieker, L. (2007).  Demystifying secondary inclusion: Powerful school-wide &
Classroom strategies.  New York: Dude Publishing.

Kryza, K. (2008).  Practical co-teaching strategies: Effective Strategies for Working
            Together in Today’s Inclusive Classroom (Grades 1-12).  [Resource Handbook].
Washington: Bureau of Education & Research.

Frattura, Elise M. (2007).  Special Education External Analysis, Recommendations, and Plan for Implementation.

Electronic reproduction of 2007−08 Wis. Stats. database, updated and current through March 31, 2009.  State Superintendent; General Classifications and Definitions; Children with Disabilities - Chapter 115 - Subchapter V – Children with Disabilities  

 

Appendices

1. Combined Curriculum and Instruction/Inclusion Workgroup Recommendations

 

2. Survey about inclusion

3. Meeting with Elementary Principals – Inclusion 2009-10

 

4. AASA Article – “The School Administrator” – September 2008

5. Memorandum dated 5/22/09 RE:  Inclusion

 

COMBINED CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION/ INCLUSION  WORKGROUP  RECOMMENDATIONS

Angela Apmann, Susan Barbee, Jacqueline Brownell,
Patty Buchholz, Laura Delagrange, Aaron Eick,
Paula Godkin, Ursula Hamilton-Perry, Michelle Kupper,
Gail Petersen, Carol Swenson, Jeff Weiss, Ann Widmar
Chad Chapin, Christine Christensen, Tim Degroot,
Alyson Eisch, Ann Flegel, Renee Goff, Traci Joslyn, Ben Lake, Marnie Langlois, Kameron Marshall, Gina McCarthy, Karen Olsen, Lori Sue Pelk, Qyla Person, Cathy Steffke, Ann Swanson,
Doris Szejna, Jeff Timm

 

 Combined 11/6/08   Revised 11/17/08 Amended 3/31/09 (Elementary)

Inclusion is a term, which expresses commitment to educate every child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend.  It involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students).
WEAC Resource June’96

In inclusive schools students expect that their classes will have a diverse learning population and as citizens of this learning community they expect they will help each other.

STAFFING
Actual staffing will be dependant upon the need/students enrolled in the school needing special education services.

1.  Ratio of Special Education  Students placed in classes shall be determined by:
A.  Needs/minutes of instruction needed by each special ed. student.
B.  The number of special ed. students is not to exceed 25% of the class in a room that does not have fulltime team teaching.
C.  A ratio of 3:1 in classrooms that are team taught full time
(1 sp.ed/1 reg. ed teacher all day).

2.  A Team Taught approach in all grade levels, in all academic areas and in all buildings, with common planning time build in.  In addition:
            A.  Flexibility in pairing of staff.
B.  Staff needs to be compatible for team teaching.
C.  Staff needs to be involved in the pairing/choice to work together.   
1.  ELEMENTARY:  One special education teacher per grade level.
One assistant per grade level.
2.  MIDDLE:  Two collaborative classrooms per team with an                                                         additional resource room.
One assistant per content area per grade level.
Additional Classrooms as needed for all disability areas.
3.  HIGH SCHOOL:  Driven by ratio criteria listed above.
Co-teach in one classroom per period.
Content area teachers scheduled into resource rooms.

3.  Self-Contained Classroom:  A self-contained special education classroom will be created that is available to all students with an IEP which states that the regular education classroom is not the appropriate environment for the student to receive some or all of the academic education.  The Model for self-contained classrooms will be:
A.  Each elementary building administration is responsible for determining
staffing based on the buildings’ special education population and disability
designations.
B.  There should be no more than two grade levels per room.
C.  The number of self-contained rooms may vary per school year to year based
on the special education population and driven by IEPs.

4.  Case managers must have regular contact with students on caseload.
A.  ELEMENTARY:   built in
B.  MIDDLE:  built in
C.  HIGH SCHOOL:  Special education teachers to meet with the students on
their caseloads. Case managers must have weekly contact with the special
      education students on their caseload.

5.  Addition of alternate programs.
A.  Middle school needs career development programs added.
B.  Elementary needs academy type program.  There is a need for an intense
behavioral intervention program.

6.  Special Education Support Staff per cluster.
A.  Three support staff per cluster with the ability to support all disability areas.
B.  Parent Liasion:  A contact person within the district to provide direction for
support.

7. Volunteer Parent Liaison Group. 
Using common language and providing training on different topics pertaining to special education.

1. A set schedule for educational training for parents through the year.
2. Parent liaison available to all stake-holders.
3. Provide special education information through all school newsletters and through RUSD website.
4. Provide a minimum quarterly orientation for parents of special education students.
5. Possible partnership between RUSD and the ARC of Racine to assist in content creation and training workshops.

ALIGNMENT
1.  K-12 Alignment of Curriculum
A.  Reduce Tracking in Middle Schools and High Schools
* Offer a rigorous curriculum that includes higher level thinking skills at each level with a reduction of tracks.        
* Establish inclusive sections to meet scheduling needs.
B.  Middle and High Schools to offer same course offerings.
C.  All levels must use differentiated instruction and the levels of intervention in
teaching.

2.  Curriculum writing, textbook selection committees and district workgroups
must include:  elementary, middle, high school teachers, and  teachers of Special Education from each level as well.

3.  IEP’s
A.  Must be available for all teachers working with the student.
*Online.
*Information available with a revised “IEP at a Glance”
that includes interventions, modification ideas and
instructional goals.  File maker pro format.
B.  Goals must be measureable with a shared responsibility between the regular
and special education teacher in monitoring student progress as they work
towards IEP goals in both the regular and special education setting.

4.  Transitions
A.  District published listing of programs which should be the same at all buildings available, including minutes per class, at each school for placement.  (So IEP’s do not need to be re-written at new placement)
B.  Field trips to next school, all students (grades 5 and 8) to ease
transition.
C.  Special Education staff to meet at 5 to 6 and 8 to 9, to go over
transferring students.
D.  Fifth grade/eighth grade special ed. teachers to meet with middle school/high school scheduling principal to ensure that minutes/courses on page 5 of IEP are in alignment with school offerings.
E.  Parent Liaison to discuss/explain and help parents with transition.

 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT    
1.  For Administration
A.  Scheduling:
*Special Education scheduling should be done first.
*Training in scheduling for team teaching.
*Scheduling for team taught classes.
*Team Taught classes must be scheduled with common planning time.
*Identification of staffing needs ready for the first session of Arena Staffing.
*Each elementary needs to develop a team consisting of the principal, special education teacher, and regular education teacher to work together to create a schoolwide schedule that allows for inclusive classrooms which meet the needs of all students.
* Re-allocation of the existing staff ie: teachers and assistants to meet the needs of each individual building.
*Scheduling needs to address the staff having access to the students and the teachers they are working with.
B.  Building Use:
*Proximity should be used to facilitate inclusion. 
*Building use needs to be driven by special education/inclusion staffing needs.
*Additional Support room necessary for staff/collaboration teachers and additional acedemic/social/behavioral support.  Room should be used by several collaborative teaching classes.

2.  For All Building Teachers
*** 1/2 day release time weekly for collaboration/professional                    development***
            >must be written into contract language for next contract ‘09)<
A.  Curriculum Guides, State Standards and Materials to all                      teachers.
B. Paradigm shift training.
Special education best practices, inclusion and team teaching.
C.  Common Language & Collaboration
*Terms, understanding of LRE,  Inclusion, Continuum of Services,  RTI Process,  IEP Process, modification/adaptations of materials, Special Education Laws.

1.  Team Teaching:  What it is and ways to do it

To ensure a successful inclusive environment education, a desire to be a part of a collaborative team, a mutual respect and shared responsibility to educating and meeting the needs of all students must be in place.  The practice of inclusion needs to be consistent throughout the district, with built in flexibility to ensure a successful environment.
Examples of Collaborative Teaching include:
1.         Team teaching:  two teachers working together to deliver the same content to all students.

1. Parallel teaching:  students divided into 2 groups with both teachers teaching simultaneously, students may rotate
2. Alternative teaching:  students divided into groups.  One teacher uses the on-level curriculum while the other teacher pre-teaches/re-teaches skills.
3. Station teaching: content is divided up and stations are set up in the room.  Students rotate through each station.  Stations may be taught be a teacher or independent. *Current reading series lends itself nicely to this model.
4. One lead, one support: one teacher teaches content while the other teacher circulates around the room and provides support (these roles should be interchangeable, not fixed). 

Team Teaching is not:
1. Floating between rooms
2. Drop-in support
3. Monitor/Consultation
4. EA support in the classroom
5. Having students only participate with their class during non-academic
times.
            E.  RTI (Response to Intervention)
* starting with informational piece with background/history, what it is  and how it is going to impact us. 
* Include differentiated instruction, the three levels of intervention and use of RTI as part of the SST pre-referral process. 
            F.  Data Collection/Progress Monitoring
* data driven decisions for all children.
* should be used to monitor progress towards IEP goals
* part of new reading series (needs further development).
* important for RTI as documentation is necessary.
* NWEA data
            G.  Transition Planning (Sped)
*Elem. to Middle, Middle to H.S.
*Trip to next school attended during school day.
*Alternative programs.
*Intake Meeting for all Special Education transfers.
*Built in meeting time for staff of 5th to 6th and 8th to 9th.

1.  Training in use of Intervention Materials

Materials that contain the same content, concepts, and skill areas as the regular education curriculum.
*ongoing training
*review use of current intervention programs.  Not to be use as core program.

MATERIALS
1.  K-12 Alignment in all areas for all students
A.  Progressive adoptions to adjust for changes
B.  CD/CDS middle and high school need curriculum driven by IEP
**Committee to be formed with the following participants
                        Elem. CD
                        Secondary CD
                        Secondary CDS
                        Reg. Educ. Elementary
                        Reg. Educ. Secondary
                        C & I Staff
                        Central Office Special Ed. Staff
The purpose of this group is to select materials that are alinged (standards and benchmarks) with the regular education curriculum.  Goal of these materials is to have the student converge into regular education materials.**
**committee to be in place by fall ’08 and materials to be selected and purchased by spring of ’09**

2.  Tracking system for disbursement of materials.
A.  Designated locked space at each building for materials.
B.  Curriculum guides disbursed at beginning of each year by
principal.  Follow up done by coordinators of each department.

3.  All teachers need TE’s for classes they teach.     
A.  Special Education teachers should have TE’s for all grade levels
they teach. Also support materials and technology.
B.  Additional Supplemental Curriculum should also be available.

4.  Alternative Education Sites must have curriculum and TE’s.
A.  Special Education materials need to be available also.
B.  Curriculum guides must be on site also.   

5.  Enrichment Opportunities available for all students.
A.  Higher level thinking skills and all areas.
B.  Restructuring of secondary basic courses to bridges the
differences.

6.  IMC Materials available for all.
A.  No longer designated by level.
B.  Available for ordering on line.

ACCESSABILITY:
Implementations of some of the  recommendations are hampered by the lack of accessability in all school buildings.  To address this problem:
A.  Short Term:  Evaluate all schools for needs.
B.  Long Term:  Convert one non-accessible building every two years, starting
with the building with the greatest need.

ADDITIONAL/ FUTURE OPTIONS
A.  Middle school to go to credit system.
B.  Alternative Program for K-12. (Mack Center)
C.  Options to earn credit in summer school.
D.  Secondary transformation needs to address restructuring of
special education.
E.  Credit requirements....pro/con
F.  Restructuring:  High School to go to sub school scheduling to fit
in options like Lunch and Learn.