Special Education Study
Brecksville-Broadview Heights School District
Brecksville, Ohio

May, 2020

American Educational Consultants
Amy Brodsky, Project/Managing Consultant
Jerry Brodsky, Administration/Managing Consultant Gillian Dillard, Special Education/Elementary Consultant
Jackie McKenney, Special Education/Secondary, Data Consultant Valerie McKenney, Administration/Special Education Consultant

American Educational Consultants provides educational consultative services to school districts, school personnel, parents and students.

For Information:
American Educational Consultants
25 Richland Dr.	5180 River Trail Springfield, NJ 07081	Cleveland, OH 44124

Phone: 973-98EDCON (973-983-3266)
e-mail: americaneducationalconsultants@gmail.com website: www.americanedcon.com/

Copyright © 2020 by American Educational Consultants. All rights reserved.
This report contains the results of proprietary research compiled for Brecksville-Broadview Heights (Ohio) City Schools for their own full, complete and exclusive use. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system without prior permission in writing from American Educational Consultants, 25 Richland Dr., Springfield, NJ 07081.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	Introduction	5

II.	Executive Summary Overview	7

III.	Commendations
A. District	11 B. Middle School and High School	12 C. Preschool-Elementary	12

IV.Recommendations
A. District	13 B. Middle School and High School	24 C. Preschool-Elementary	25

V. Vision for the Future	27

VI. Appendices	29 A. Data Charts
i. General SPED and district information ii. Similar district comparisons
iii. SPED enrollment data
iv. Related service hours and staffing v. Student achievement
B. Resources	59 C. Acronyms	61 D. Guidelines for Determining SWDs’ Need for a 1:1 Aide	63 E. Guidelines for Effective Communication with Parents Seeking	67
IEP Changes
F. Parental Input Summary	69 G. Due Process Issues	81 H. Best SPED Practices Overview	83

3

4

Introduction

Educational leaders identify special education throughout the nation as an area that deserves scrutiny today with respect to its costs and benefits educationally and economically as well as any district’s program strengths and improvement needs. Much research has been done on student identification practices, the effects of labeling students, best instructional practices and academic costs/benefits of special education programming. We know that extensive funding and energy is invested into staffing, programming, administering and defending special education.

We know that the most significant challenge in education for all students is to provide quality and equitable instruction at reasonable costs. We know that local, regional, state and national data can help us bring our perceptions of work/caseload, student success, and other aspects of special education programming into a best practices model at reasonable costs to taxpayers and increased benefits for students.

It is laudatory that today the Brecksville-Broadview Heights CSD leadership is asking itself in fact to what degree it is providing high quality and equitable instruction for special education students at reasonable costs and if not, asking American Educational Consultants how to do so – how to increase its special education program’s effectiveness, increase student performance and envision a future for special education within the district that is aligned with the high quality reputation the district as a whole maintains.

We have been asked to:
1. Review all of the programs and personnel associated with the delivery of special students’ services with the focus on the most efficient and effective delivery model for students.
2. Provide recommendations towards a future 3-5 year plan for re-envisioning special education within the district.
3. Provide a detailed analysis of district programming and services for all special education students.

In addition, responses to the following questions are included in the final report: 1. Is the delivery model effective in each school?
2. Is the delivery model cost effective?
3. Is the staffing model appropriate for the needs of the students?
4. Are the curriculum and supplemental materials adequately supporting the needs of all students?
5. Is it more cost effective and instructionally appropriate to provide services for students within the district using the current model or not?

With respect to district culture, school climate and administration:
1. Are the needs of students being met more or less efficiently and effectively in the district’s schools?
2. How much does the current management system influence special education identification rates or service placements?
3. How much does the current management system influence the perceived effectiveness of the special education program among staff and parents?

5

With respect to disability specifics and comparisons:
1. What is the distribution of students with disabilities, by type of placement?
2. How does the program compare to the state and national rates, types and delivery models; the number of students with disabilities; the number of special education and related services providers; the number of students with disabilities receiving related services by type of service; and the percentage of students in inclusive settings?

With respect to service delivery and programs:
1. Are there more or less para-educators, educators and/or support professionals than required?
2. Would a different staffing pattern be more cost effective and instructionally appropriate? 3. How do the district’s service delivery and programs at every level compare with best
practices?
4. What successes and opportunities for improvement exist?

With respect to outcomes, school completion and discipline:
1. How does the school completion rate for special education students compare to regular education students?
2. How does it compare by disability?
3. How are disciplinary actions and student behavior handled by the schools?
4. Is there a model that is working more effectively than other models for behavior and disciplinary action?
5. How does the staffing level relate to student disability, performance and needs?
6. What is discipline of students with disabilities compared to the general school population by individual school?
7. What is the result of state assessment performance of students with disabilities? 8. What is student proficiency in math and reading?
9. What is the overall identification rate compared to state and national rates?

With respect to costs and funding (a lack of data provided did not allow us to draw conclusions regarding):
1. How does the district’s funding of special education compare to state and national funding?
2. What is the cost per pupil broken down by disability and level of service? 3. Compare the use of IDEA funds to district funds.
4. Compare costs per special education student per program (out-of-district, self-contained, resource room, individual aide, or mainstreamed).
5. Compare cost of out-of-district programs and analyze if additional space is needed in the district.

6

Executive Summary Overview

We found the Brecksville-Broadview Heights staff to be professional, courteous, informative and actively engaged in their school, grade level/subject, and with desire to provide every student a quality education. We found building administrators knowledgeable and skilled as leaders, with quality professional attitudes about instruction in their schools. There was a palpable sense of pride by district employees related to the Brecksville-Broadview Heights City School District, schools, staff, students and families. In addition, several staff members and parents expressed their gratitude that the district had employed an objective evaluation of Special Education in their district, to include an overview of strengths as well as identification of areas in need of improvement.

From a systemic perspective, this comprehensive analysis provides an opportunity for review and revision of important district/school components which should better support the overall structure and success of the school system, especially as related to special education. The 20 commendations and 27 fairly specific recommendations are designed to help the Brecksville-Broadview Heights CSD know what it should be proud of and help it develop a multi-year improvement plan with respect to its delivery of the highest quality FAPE for students with disabilities at the most reasonable costs to taxpayers.

One atypical cultural topic identified through the site visit is the perception of miscommunication and lack of support for staff, students, and parents by Central Office administrators overseeing special education in the district. Teachers and parents alike identified frustrations with a lack of response and follow through, unclear communication, unrealistic expectations, and generally negative interactions. The district needs an opportunity to reset and increase administrative staffing at the Central Office level in order to move forward in a positive manner.

Four themes clearly emerged from this audit of Special Education in Brecksville-Broadview Heights. The themes are as follows:

●	the need for clear communication from Central Office to building level leadership, as well as clear communication to all staff members, parents of Special Education students and community stakeholders.
●	the need for improved relationships between some staff and parents and Special Education Administration.
●	the need for the development of a Special Education Procedures Manual to ensure legal compliance, consistency in programs, protocols, and procedures.
●	the need to utilize the information from this report to create and sustain a multi-year plan for district improvement for all students with disabilities.

Among the commendations we identify are: the quality of the teachers; their strong desire to have strong elementary, middle school and high school programming and operations that support students with disabilities in an inclusive setting; their work together to integrate special and general education staff, programs and students; a significant amount of positive student achievement data; and a strong, focused use of educational technology.

7

With respect to opportunities for improvement, among the most important, we identified:

A. First and foremost, we recommend the district address the lack of confidence that special education staff and parent communities have in the current special education leadership. This lack of confidence appears to be the root cause of so many of the problems our team identified. In addition, although this leadership seems well intended, we found evidence that supports the lack of confidence we cite here. We see only one option to getting the entire program on a proper track, that would be making a major announcement that the person/people leading special education at the district level are going to change. This action can be an actual personnel change or a complete and transparent turnaround in how the current person/people conduct themselves and perform professional tasks. Which alternative here is most feasible and appropriate is a decision we feel confident the superintendent can make in a timely manner.

B. We recommend a serious review of a gap in the elementary schools’ spectrum of services for students with disabilities (SWDs), that being the lack of ability SWDs have of being in an environment to receive the specific services from which that student would most benefit. At the elementary level, the range of services and its related staffing was inconsistent across buildings and students were being serviced based on currently available programming, not based on their real needs.

C. Based on data from national, state, and local comparable school districts, we recommend staffing level adjustments in a few areas. In Central Office we recommend the addition of two coordinator positions reporting to the Pupil Services Director. In the area of paraprofessional aides, we recommend a reduction to proper levels of service to students that would result in the need for 20 fewer positions. Speech Language Pathologist load and comparable staffing data indicates the addition of one position would be appropriate. Finally, behavior specialists appear to be an area of need in district and we believe that need should be addressed. From a cost center perspective, our staffing recommendations are well within a net zero budgetary scenario.

With respect to the additional Central Office coordinator positions, detailed later in this report, we do want to emphasize here the need for on-boarding to include expertise in data analysis which we found significantly lacking to-date. We believe data indicating student achievement levels of progress of SWD, or lack thereof, should be at-the-ready and available. The abovementioned coordinators should also be viewed as academic leaders in the area of accountability support to central office, building administrators, staff and parents. Decisions about what curriculum and instructional strategies are more or less effective should be informed by the data that currently could be available. We found most staff and administrators never mentioning the use of data to drive decision making processes. Academic improvement is driven by good planning after analyzing good data. In addition, we identify some concerns about full implementation of MTSS/RTI programming. This is another example of a data analysis and informed data-driven decision making need. Specifically for SPED, this administrator should also consider ongoing tracking some of our data charting in Appendix A for monitoring the SPED program’s level of future success.

8

With respect to the reduction of paraprofessional aides, we know that employing more staff than needed for students with disabilities has four important downsides. First, it doesn’t serve SWD’s IEP goals designed to support the student’s ability to reach an appropriate level of independence. Second, it creates an expectation on the part of teachers that a special education teacher or paraprofessional is required if students with disabilities are in a general education classroom. Third, it typically produces lower student achievement than independence or resource room instruction, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the tendency of gen ed teachers to overlook students for whom they perceive a different adult to be responsible for their learning. And finally, it’s fiscally not responsible to the taxpayers, who support the school, to employ more staff than needed to provide proper instruction and instructional support for students.

Parents, teachers, and principals tend to value paraprofessionals. Extra hands and extra help must be good, or so the thinking goes. Decades of research…for the U.S. Department of Education, however, have shown detrimental effects on student learning and socialization from the overuse of paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals can isolate students with special needs from their general education peers or isolate them from the teacher, who typically spends less time with them since they already have an adult helping them.
Michael F. Giangreco, “Paraprofessional Support of Students with Disabilities,” University of Vermont, http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/archives/mgiangre/paraprofessional.html

D. Best practice protocols that help, among other things, properly focus IEP-development participants, should be utilized when support services are requested or pondered for their potential need/effectiveness during the IEP process. Consistent expectations should be communicated regarding the development of data-driven goals within IEPs and followed with professional development to support Intervention Specialists in more consistent and robust IEP writing.

E. Paraprofessional orientations are not fully successful as many staff reported lacking knowledge and skills particular to their assignments. Apparently they found help from their colleagues after being assigned to SWDs. Some of this isn’t problematic but some, for instance handling the issues of medically fragile students, is not something a paraprofessional should have to find out while attending to students.

F. Parents appear generally dissatisfied with services Brecksville-Broadview Heights provides their SWDs. We do recommend, if not already in place, a monthly Parent Communication Forum for parents of SWDs. The parents we met with for the most part were upset about the lack of communication and lack of confidence in the work at the administrative level. A Parent Communication Forum also serves as a proactive step to maintain good relationships with these parents, who find raising their children a bit more challenging than the student without disability parent needs. In addition, we offer some information about Ohio’s Parent Mentor program.

9

G. We provide a list of resources the school might want to use to help in the area of mental health and behavioral well-being guidance, consulting and placement options; curricular support for mental health and behavior-centered issues that could be implemented in resource rooms. (See pp. 18-19)

H. Some specific elementary/secondary commendations and recommendations are included in the report. We expect school leaders to look closely at those for accolades and opportunities to improve.

We recommend a special services strategic plan be developed and a 3-5 year full implementation plan be designed to decide what/how to implement desired recommendations contained within.

Following this report’s narrative are several appendices: (A) the charts and graphs of hard data used as, along with the anecdotal data gathered from staff and parents during the site visit, the basis for our conclusions; (B) the sources of our hard data and comparisons among area schools as well as state and national standards and norms; (C) a short list of acronyms used in the report; (D) guidelines for how to determine when the use of 1:1 aides is appropriate, with a checklist to support an IEP team’s analysis; (E) guidelines for effective communication with parents during the IEP process; (F) a summary of the parental input from the evening meeting and online open survey; and (G) Best SPED Practices Overview.

It is clear that Brecksville-Broadview Heights CSD has the capacity to ensure that all its students reach their individual potentials, able to garner college and career readiness as needed for 21st Century learners. The recommendations contained herein are designed to support that goal.

Again, we believe that Brecksville-Broadview Heights CSD’s most significant strength is its array of quality educational professionals, from the superintendent through the ranks of professional and support staff. And we believe that because of that, our recommendations should be that much more effective. Brecksville-Broadview Heights has the ingredients to take their current strengths and turn our report into a multi-year plan of actions that improve instruction and success for students with disabilities.

10

Commendations

District

1. We met with administrators, teaching and support staff, and parents. All were courteous, professional and knowledgeable. Our observations as we travelled through the schools matched their descriptions of programming as well as staff and student engagement. Brecksville-Broadview Heights’ continued reputation as a quality school district is well-deserved in many ways.

2. The Brecksville-Broadview Heights professional community appears dedicated and committed to the school community. They demonstrated pride in colleagues and their students. Securing and retaining quality professional staff appears to be in place effectively.

3. The superintendent is knowledgeable and capable regarding special education program needs and the effect resources have on them as well as general education and all-student achievement goals. We were impressed with her openness to improvement and how that could occur.

4. Building administrators, teachers and related services staff, along with paraprofessionals, presented themselves as appropriately dedicated to performing their tasks in a manner that supported quality programming for students with disabilities. Several mentioned their desire to improve in specific areas which we concluded at the end of our data collection to indeed be areas needing improvement.

5. There was ample evidence of instructional best practices including: small group instruction, visually presented expectations and objectives, classroom climates of respect, multisensory instruction, and the use of manipulatives.

6. Inclusive practices are in place when it comes to extra-curricular activities and opportunities. Staff and parents noted as a point of pride that students felt welcomed and accepted into these activities and that coaches and peers went out of their way to make students feel included.

7. With respect to identification, the district appears to be properly identifying students in need of special education services and aligns with the state average in percentage of students identified.

8. Staffing is generally adequate and appropriate.

9. Student achievement data for all students is impressive, and achievement data for SWDs is either on par with or exceeds that of identified comparable districts.

10. There was ample evidence of the use of technology throughout the district, including assistive technology to meet particular student needs.

11

11. At all levels, staff members were highly engaged with students. Building administrators, general education teachers, intervention specialists, aides, and other staff members were actively engaged in classroom activities and supporting all students.

12. All members of the community were friendly, knowledgeable, open, and honest. It was evident that Brecksville-Broadview Heights is a warm and open community of adults and students in which typical peers embrace students with special needs.

Specific to Middle School and High school

1. We observed quality work among some co-teaching situations at the High School.

2. There is a strong continuum of services at the High School, allowing for multiple options in various subjects for students to get additional support, as well as dedicated time with an intervention specialist who specializes in the subject area.

3. We observed some evidence of best practice instruction at the Middle School.

4. At the Middle School, we observed frequent use of educational technology and comfort with the one-to-one initiative for students.

Specific to Preschool-Elementary

1. We observed strong teams at the preschool, with all staff members working collaboratively to meet the needs of all students enrolled. There was strong collaboration among staff members and programs.

2. At the preschool, there was appropriate intermingling of SWDs and typical peers as models.

3. At the elementary level we observed a variety of approaches to servicing students with special needs, including co-teaching, inclusion, resource rooms, and self-contained units.

4. At the elementary level we observed classroom climates of rapport, respect, collaboration, and cooperation among colleagues.

12

Recommendations

District

1. High quality school districts have a we work together attitude. With respect to special education administration, staff and parents, we found common attitudes from all directions to be more US vs. THEM. Typically, this is the result of a wide set of factors. But once we see everyone rowing the boat in a different, sometimes counterproductive direction; rather than try to identify specific culture, communication, exclusive practices causes; we find it more helpful to decide who needs to take the first step in bringing the right people together and solving the overriding, then specific issues. And in every instance, we find it is the responsibility of school administration to take that first step. We recommend serious consideration be given to new special education leadership, either by changing personnel or by ensuring a major and immediate change in how the current personnel do work, closely supervised by the superintendent who in this case has quality knowledge and experience in special education, and importantly has good credibility among staff and community.

2. The level of ease/difficulty we have gathering hard data from a district’s special education department is typically an indicator of the degree to which that district’s special education leadership gathers, uses, and understands data-driven decision making. In this case, the degree to which we received hard data indicates to us that special education decision making is more ad hoc than structured; more questionable than credible; more susceptible to guesswork than identifiable and supportable.

We understand why fiscal data was not easy to gather, as the Treasurer identified early that he had just recently been employed by the district and that the data wasn’t organized as it should be, which would give him the ability to provide us quick, accurate answers to our questions. Although our ability to provide solid fiscal recommendations regarding special education revenue and expenses is limited, we fully accept the Treasurer’s explanation as to the reasons he was less than fully able to help us at this time. He, along with HR, did collaborate to provide us important information regarding staffing costs that was very helpful to our work.

However, with respect to special education leadership, we recommend a much more serious use of data that exists in the software the district already uses, along with consideration to using more robust software more recently made available to schools for this purpose. Strategic planning along with daily decision making based on available and shareable data, in its aggregate, is more credible to constituencies, more accurate to those affected, and more supportable if confronted with a need to defend the district’s actions on appeal.

3. It is recommended that a district level Special Education Procedural Manual be developed. This manual should serve as a tool for Special Education teachers and parents. Appropriate laws, policies, protocols, and procedures should be included in this handbook. In addition, the handbook should contain all Special Education district forms. The handbook should be posted on the District website, shared with staff and parents, used as a tool to orient new Special Educators, and reviewed/updated annually.

13

4. At the building level, we observed a lack of clarity as to the reporting lines for special education within the district. Teachers and principals alike all stated that when a question or concern arose regarding special education, they felt the need to communicate directly with the Director of Pupil Services. Building principals need to be empowered to be engaged directly with special education within their buildings. To enable this, we recommend clear direction and communication from Central Office as to the responsibilities for principals, regular meetings and/or communication regarding special education concerns that can be addressed at a building level, clear procedures outlined at the district level as to how to address teacher and parent concerns that arise at a building level, and professional development for the administrators to support them in this endeavor. Staffing our coordinator recommendations would allow building principals and staff consulting or clarification opportunities as well.

5. Although we understand the guidance the District receives from the Ohio Department of Education, we found concerns in the sample IEPs we viewed from the perspective of avoiding successful due process complaints against the District. We recommend more specificity, more purposeful information, more clearly identifying time (weekly, biweekly, monthly), instructor (gen ed or IS), setting (1:1, small group, classroom) and intensity of interventions (and who was to be recording data along with manner and frequency) being included and recorded as part of the IEP process. In addition, we didn’t find any record of why an aide was part of the student’s instructional services, or not. We know when an aide is to be part of a student’s service plan, data that justifies that aide should be included for now and future staffing decisions. We have included in Appendix H additional guidance as it relates to data collection and IEP development and in Appendix D additional guidance with respect to the need for paraprofessional aides.

Recognizing the burden this puts on the IS to get permission from parents to make service changes, we find parents of SWDs often view significant and concerning, changes that from the school’s perspective are deemed minor and not a change of placement. We believe in reducing the likelihood of losing a due process claim to be paramount for many reasons, not the least of which is the multiplying effect a loss has on others willing to pursue that route to get more services for one’s student. The cost of prevention we believe is small compared to the cost in time and public dollars it takes to defend a complaint. We have included in Appendix E a list of guidelines for effective communication with parents seeking changes in IEP to help support this recommendation.

Also, with respect to IEP development, we recommend clear and documented communications on topics of import to those in position to provide input and consensus with respect to services to be provided to SWD in the quest to match IEP needs to services that have a likelihood of being successful for those students. For instance, we heard conflicting guidance on the need and use of 1:1 aides for SWDs who might need that support; conflicting guidance on IEP needs funneled into goals that can be served in-district, through current SPED program options as opposed to options currently not in place; conflicting guidance as to the purpose and use of paraprofessionals. Aides need to be aligned with the IEP and not provided randomly by administrators, but rather by the direction of the IEP team. Thus, our

14

recommendations to develop and utilize a robust hardcopy and digital SPED procedures manual, and adopt the guidance provided in our appendices regarding these issues.

6. There appears to be a significant gap in the spectrum of services for students with disabilities, particularly at the elementary level. We found a significantly different approach and model at each of the elementary buildings. As the District plans to consolidate the three schools into one, we recommend that students are placed in LREs according to the needs dictated by their IEPs, rather than matching students to services currently in place in the schools, which is what appears to be happening currently. The new elementary building should be able to provide for a range of needs, including resource room instruction and inclusion classrooms for each grade level, as well as appropriately categorized self-contained units. Not only is this best practice but also compliant with legal requirements.

7. We recommend protocols/checklists be developed for many challenges and included within the newly developed Special Education Procedures Manual. For instance: when to consider 1:1 aides; how co-teaching is to be utilized at each level; the role of the IS at elementary and secondary buildings; preparation for IEP meetings; and RTI/MTSS process, status and length of time expected until further review. We recommend that RTI be closely monitored. A student should not be on Tier 1 or Tier 2 for extended periods of time if there is not data-driven success with the interventions in place. In addition, we recommend ensuring that RTI/MTSS protocols are clearly communicated, approached consistently across buildings, and tracked digitally.

8. With respect to staffing levels themselves and assignment of SPED staff and related services to buildings, we recommend thinking as if it is zero-based budgeting, adjusting staffing to levels dictated by student IEP needs annually. We understand that a District is restricted by many important variables, negotiated employment agreements, as well as quality practices, when wanting to adjust staff to match student instructional needs. We also know that services based on plans that match students’ IEP goals, those goals based on IEP needs, reviewed closely using checklists such as those included in this report, developed based on clear data, finalized independently from non-supported requests or opinions from IEP meeting participants, should dictate the District’s staffing.

We recommend a plan be designed such that staffing be properly assigned based on data-driven IEP goals. Every year, students with disabilities are provided IEPs. Every IEP identifies the instructional and support service needs. Staffing needs should grow out of those needs, not allowing the seeping in of reverse concerns – developing IEPs to fit current programs and staffing levels. Note the imbalance in workload case assignments in Appendix A- Table 13, where the average caseload at different buildings/different levels is awry. We would expect to see high school caseloads the highest, middle school loads next, and elementary the lowest certainly in the Fall count as they often will grow as the school year proceeds.

As stated above, we recommend a zero-based concept be utilized to ensure proper staffing levels. Data collection appeared spotty, in need of digital software solutions. Building data meetings can be an effective means of communicating about and deciding on next steps for

15

SWDs. Meetings are recommended but we know another helpful solution is digital communications through software that integrates with a school’s SIS.* Although we were not in any IEP meetings in the District, we commonly see this occur when meeting participants work backwards from the services they want, to the IEP goals that will get them those services, and further back to finding some justification, if asked, that will support those services. We found anecdotal evidence of this backward process concern, for both instructional and related services.

It is common, and we found evidence here, that sometimes a staff member’s perceived guidance from supervisors was used to justify a less than appropriate service plan for a student. Several times we found inappropriate IEP placement/program decisions based on a misinterpretation of a statement made by the Pupil Services Director, for instance.

In addition, we recommend sharing, with staff, clarifications on a few items:

A. A 504 plan is not a substitute, nor a half-way mechanism, for an IEP. A suspect disability analysis should take both identifications seriously and separately, as each requires different prerequisites for consideration.

B. An IEP meeting is designed to develop consensus. It is inappropriate to make decisions on whether or not a student should be on an IEP by taking a vote of those present at the meeting, or one person asserting full authority, or by allowing coercion or potential legal leverage to enter the calculus.

C. An IEP is individualized. It is not developed based on whether we have a program or not; whether staff have time in their day to provide a service or not; or whether a parent is compliant or defiant. An IEP is to be written and implemented solely based on providing a FAPE in the LRE. The need for a 1:1 aide, for instance, is not a district decision nor a parental demand but rather a deliberate and data-driven action. (See Appendix D for guidance.) We question, for example, when we see a related service provider inserting the exact same number of minutes per month on every student’s IEP. That indicates something other than an individualized plan and a data-driven decision.

D. SWDs may not be unilaterally nor permanently removed from general educational opportunities such as Music, Physical Education, Art, assemblies or recess, or field trips to be able to receive services.

E. We know understaffing properly developed IEPs is illegal. We know that overstaffing properly developed IEPs is both counterproductive for the student’s social independence goals, for example, counterproductive in terms of having the content teacher focused on the IEP student equally as non-IEP students in the classroom, and inappropriate with respect to spending taxpayer dollars wisely, also our obligation as a public entity. Thus our recommendations to develop staffing plans for the upcoming year based on IEP-identified needs, including teachers, support services and paraprofessional needs; and our staffing recommendation adjustments based on current IEP data.

16

We understand the challenge of communicating clearly with all those involved in the IEP process with respect to proper services for SWDs. And we know Brecksville-Broadview Heights staff has the expertise to do this properly with support from building leadership and program administrators.

*Although we don’t endorse product solutions, software the District might want to investigate could include capabilities built into SameGoal, i-Ready, Google Docs, Google Classroom, PowerSchool, OnCourse Connect, Infinite Campus and IEP Anywhere, AIMSweb, ProgressBook, among other software options that may integrate IEP data needs with a school’s SIS program and make data collection, IEP development and the sharing between gen ed teachers and case managers more efficient. Where the District is already using software including the above, we suggest the software is much more robust than the District currently is taking advantage of in its use.

9. With respect to curriculum, we found it uniquely concerning the lack of consistent materials being used throughout classrooms. Many teachers, both general education and special education, reported (and we observed in practice) that district provided resources were often left on the shelf in favor of teacher designed worksheets, lessons, and units. ISs expressed concern over the lack of district-approved differentiated supplemental materials, particularly for math. There appeared to be a lack of accountability for teachers to follow district mandated curricula. We recommend, particularly as new curricula are being adopted at the elementary level, that expectations are produced and communicated as to the use of provided materials and that teachers are held accountable for this use. Additionally, we recommend that research-based differentiated materials to supplement the new curriculum adoption are provided for special education students. We strongly advise that a team of teachers, including general and special educators, be involved in the identification and review of these materials.

10. Response to Intervention (RTI), that is now known by the updated Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) program, is understood by most staff as a necessary and helpful process in the identification of students being referred for services. We have two recommendations in this important area. First, we recommend appropriate updating to MTSS-trained program components. Second, we recommend a clearly established process for data collection. We recommend that this process be recorded digitally, with data being accessible to all members of the school’s Student Support Team. The established process should be consistent across buildings, and a designated individual at each building should be responsible for overseeing its implementation with fidelity.

Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is a revitalized RTI model that would support all Brecksville-Broadview Heights students. It is a preventative based framework that uses a data-driven approach to improve academic, behavioral and attendance issues in public school systems. With regard to the general education curriculum, MTSS serves to provide systemic, robust, targeted academic support to students so they don’t need to be identified inappropriately as in need of special services, which is especially a vulnerability at the youngest elementary grades.

17

11. We recommend consideration be given to the orientation of support staff to their responsibilities in a manner that is more effective than currently practiced. Paraprofessionals reported feeling under-trained in general, and specifically with regard to medically fragile students. It is recommended that paraprofessionals be given clear job expectations and a job description at the beginning of new assignments. It is recommended that paraprofessionals be trained by qualified practitioners to ensure optimal effectiveness. We also found, as we spoke with and observed paraprofessionals in classrooms, that their presence in classrooms ranged from very effective to not necessary, not justified, and likely counterproductive.

12. A review of available information was conducted relating to settlement agreements, due process issues and the fiscal effect of Brecksville-Broadview Heights students with disabilities attending other schools under state funding that reduces foundation funds to Brecksville-Broadview Heights. The cause of the claims for each of the currently active settlements can be summarized to be that the District does not have an adequate program for the student’s specific disability and subsequent to that claim, in each case, the District could not demonstrate to the contrary. That is, although Brecksville-Broadview Heights likely has adequate programs for most of these students, it could not produce data, student progress, program success rates, and other information to defend itself against claims of inadequacy. This is a systemic issue with responsibility on both administrators and teachers/aides. More details on the findings of this review can be found in Appendix G.

13. We recommend serious consideration be given to longer as opposed to shorter assignment of case managers to their students. We know that once parents develop a trust and a cooperative, effective relationship with their child’s case manager, it is advantageous for that relationship to be maintained for multiple and consecutive school years. In addition, when transitioning from elementary school to middle and then to high school, a student’s current and new case manager should have equal roles during the transition as well as when both exiting and entering IEP processes.

14. When we examined the district’s mobility data (shown in Tables 4 and 7 in Appendix A), we were left with questions. We are unsure if the information reported from the Ohio Department of Education is accurate, but assuming its veracity we recommend the district investigate as to why the mobility rate for SWDs is more than twice that of all students. This does seem to be a relatively common issue among comparable schools, but still one to consider as to its basis.

15. Data collection included a parent meeting as well as parent input via an open online survey. Appendix F at the end of this report provides detailed results and analysis. In summary, however, results showed the majority of parents who responded to the online survey and attended the meeting were generally dissatisfied with the special education program, more about how it is administered and the curriculum as opposed to how their children are taught. Parents are frustrated with lack of communication, at being ignored, how IEP meetings are handled, the gaps in the spectrum of services, and a myriad of other issues that frankly demonstrate a significant lack of confidence in the work of the administrative head. SWD parents appear to feel strongly that their children do not receive the same quality education that other students in the district receive. These issues, in our opinion, cause their

18

dissatisfaction with even moderate, minor gaps between their expectations and the district’s practices.

Parents are generally pleased with teachers, specifically the intervention specialists, and feel that staff is caring, dedicated to the success of their children, and uses a positive teamwork approach. Many parents were pleased with support of the school community and the inclusion of students by their coaches and typical peers in extra-curricular activities.

16. Today’s schools generally are challenged with emotional and mental health responsibilities on behalf of their students. While the buildings are appropriately staffed with school psychologists and guidance counselors, we received a tremendous amount of feedback regarding the need for additional supports for students with behavioral concerns. The current services provided by behavior coaches and consultants is resulting in more confusion than support. Additionally, ISs have the perception that ED classifications are discouraged and proper support for students in a self-contained unit is unattainable. We recommend that consideration is given to terminating the current contract with PEP and instead hiring behavior specialists within the district to support the needs of students and teachers in each building. In addition to this, we compiled the following list of support options (again keeping in mind that we do not endorse specific products or vendors):

A. Ellen Casper/Kevin Kemelhar; full array of therapist specialists and services; https://www.ellenfcasperphd.com/

B. Michelle Depola – Founded Kids Link which is a group of psychologists, speech therapists, and doctors. Specialize in evaluations, autism, and social emotional needs of SWDs. Developing new program for students with Down Syndrome. Operate a school for severely disabled students. www.kidslinkohio.com

C. Dr Steven Gersovitch/ Sherry McClurg – Family Center by the Falls; consultation includes Lawrence School. http://fcbtf.com

D. April Siegel-Green; former Orange Schools School Psychologist and SPED Director Chardon Schools; trauma/crisis consulting; Frontline Service https://www.frontlineservice.org/

E. Vanessa Jensen, PsyD; Cleveland Clinic; Specializes in Autism and resulting behavior manifestations; works with child and adolescent behaviors; https://my.clevelandclinic.org/staff/643-vanessa-jensen

And for curricular materials that address mental health/behavior-centered issues that could be dealt with in resource rooms, for instance, Brecksville-Broadview Heights might want to investigate the following:
High school: http://www.pathstraining.com/main/curriculum
Middle school: https://www.attainmentcompany.com/positive-behavior-curriculum Elementary school: https://www.berkeleyschools.net/teaching-and-learning/toolbox

19

17. It is recommended that clear communication be shared monthly with staff regarding processes and procedures related to special education to avoid teacher misunderstandings. We recommend having more building data meetings and we heard the desire to have focused professional development. But we didn’t hear data being cited as a reason for any of their opinions about what they were doing well and what should be improved. The staff didn’t seem to have a handle on how they were doing objectively other than the state’s report card letter grade. We recommend more focus on the same data we’ve included in this report, for example, as ways everyone can see the progress the schools are making and where they are succeeding or not succeeding.

18. The physical placement of special education units, teachers of SWDs and related services in each building should be reviewed. Specifically, the Multi-Handicapped units at the elementary and middle school levels were cause for concern. While it is assumed that the elementary situation will be resolved in the construction of the new building, the current classroom situation with its size, layout, and lack of dedicated restroom facility causes unnecessary hardship for staff and students, less effective learning environment, and possibly violations of standards. At the Middle School, this unit is comprised of a large number of students across a wide spectrum of needs. All students are located in one semi-divided space, sometimes instructed by only one teacher and several aides. The physical layout of the room causes unnecessary distractions and doesn’t allow for the appropriate differentiated instruction to occur.

Additionally, in both the elementary and middle school levels, there is a lack of space for ISs and aides to pull students for small group instruction or to provide small group accommodations for testing. Several related service providers commented on either the lack of space, or the lack of privacy and/or conducive conditions to be able to conduct testing and therapy sessions.

19. The Ohio Department of Education funds Parent Mentor projects. A Parent Mentor is the parent of a child with a disability employed by local education agencies and Educational Service Centers to help families and school districts by providing support, information and training services. The Brecksville-Broadview Heights Schools might find filling this position worthwhile in fulfilling its desire to communicate appropriately with parents and ensuring parents of suspect SWDs and students of SWDs have proper access to all information pertaining to their ability to secure proper services for their children. A parent mentor:
a. guides families through the special education process;
b. helps families understand their rights and responsibilities;
c. provides information and resources to families and schools. This includes education laws and district programs;
d. engages community services and other resources to support schools and families;
e. attends Individualized Education Program meetings and other meetings at the requests of the parents or staff members;
f.	listens and supports both the families and teachers on an individual basis; g. hosts information sessions or workshops for families and professionals; and
h. connects families, schools and the community to benefit students with disabilities.

More information can be found at https://www.ocecd.org/ParentMentorsofOhio.aspx

20

20. With regard to staffing needs, we generally found reasonable caseloads, adequate planning time, and good working conditions. At the same time, we found staff asking for more common planning and communicating time, complaining about the stress of their schedules, and requesting more personnel. Our data research and charting are designed to identify the degree to which staff concerns are justified. In addition, since student achievement is the focus of our mission, we superimpose student achievement progress over staffing and instructional delivery to draw our conclusions and, where appropriate, recommendations.

With respect to common planning and communicating time, we recommend the purchase, implementation of, and training on, software designed for schools that provides teachers the opportunity to input student progress data in a manner that intervention specialists, administrators, and other appropriate personnel can access and utilize. This would reduce the need those writing IEPs and setting up meetings have on individual face-to-face time in the same way that email is used as a convenient way to communicate information among different people without needing to schedule time to do so. Currently iReady is used and some ProgressBook style of software but we found use, not necessarily the capability of the software, lacking.

We found the overall number of SWDs within expected parameters but did not receive data for us to determine if fiscal parameters, percent of budget, and per pupil expenditures are within expected parameters. At the same time, we found that at the administrative level there is a need for additional staffing to help improve the efficiency of work, better establish reporting lines, and improve communication within the department. The following recommendations are also in line with the staffing parameters in the identified comparable districts.

With respect to staffing:

A. We recommend hiring two Coordinators who would report directly to the Pupil Services Director. Based on both abovementioned credibility/programmatic needs and research of leadership staffing at comparable school districts, we recommend the district create two additional centralized coordinators. We see two reasonable options: (1) create separate Elementary and Secondary Special Education Coordinator positions that would report directly to the Pupil Services Director or (2) create one Special Education Coordinator and one Gifted Coordinator who would report directly to the Pupil Services Director. [Although gifted programming was not within the purview of our work, we believe the superintendent is in the best position to decide whether more need exists in leadership in that area or not.] In either case two administrative leaders between the Director and building staff/parents are appropriate given both comparable schools’ staffing and identified needs within this report. With the addition of these two positions, it is recommended that the Special Education Instructional Coach position and the stipend for the Special Education Elementary Liaison would no longer be necessary, as the functions of these positions would be absorbed into the new coordinators’ responsibilities.

21

B. Related Services:

Adaptive Phys Ed – It was observed that adaptive PE is not currently a service provided at any of the schools, but was noted anecdotally that it probably should be. While we do not have data from current IEPs to support the exact need, it is recommended that the District look into the needs of its students as it relates to Adaptive PE.

Behavioral Specialists – Currently the District contracts with PEP (Positive Education Program) to provide behavior coaches and consultants who provide a range of services for students and teachers. It is recommended that this outside contract be replaced with the internal hires of behavior specialists to support the development of FBAs and enactment of behavior plans throughout the district.

Speech and Language Pathologists: Our staffing recommendations are typically based on a combination of (1) collation of raw data drawn from the district’s software program holding individual students’ IEP-identified service needs and caseload data, (2) anecdotal summaries from SLPs in the district as they describe their workloads, who and how they provide services to students, their use or nonuse of small group sessions, and (3) discussion with the lead sped district administrator about weighting some caseloads higher given the intensity of student needs within those
caseloads. We know sometimes an SLP’s workload is more than a collation of raw data needs, in IEP-identified service minutes per month.

We were initially provided secondary data documents, already claimed to have been collated from reliable sources. This data indicated both a need for one additional SLP (caseload information) and overstaffing by 3 SLP FTEs (IEP minutes/month). After explaining this data conflict, the superintendent investigated and quickly provided us a reliable reporting of the data from the district’s IEP database. This final, reliable IEP-needs source confirms overstaffing of up to 3 SLP positions. (Appendix A, Table 10.1)

We note the current cadre of SLPs seem to be hardworking, sincere professionals who appear to not only fill up their workday with high quality services but also expressed frustration at not being able to do more for their students to the point of professional exhaustion. Given both the data indicating the district can provide appropriate SLP services with fewer of them and their belief they are overworked, our recommendation is that the district take a close look at this staffing and expectations of each SLP. We suspect they are providing more services than those that are IEP or preIEP-driven and we expect efficiencies to ensue when the elementary buildings are combined into one, confirming our identification here of overstaffing.

[Note: Our calculations assumed 5000 student contact minutes/month, which is a bit less than district-wide teacher-student contact time that allows for over 120 mins. daily for prep/paperwork/meetings and an average of 2 students at a time, among other ASHA-consulted standard assumptions.]

22

C. Educational Aides: The District employs far more educational aides compared to comparable districts and state averages. It is unclear the specific need in terms of number of aides because of the way IEPs are currently written. Intervention Specialists perceive that they are not to write 1:1 aide support into a student’s IEP, and therefore most aides are assigned as classroom aides, and not assigned to specific students or responsibilities. As is noted in a previous recommendation, consulting Appendix D for guidance on the assignment of 1:1 aides will help to clarify the actual need in terms of staffing numbers.

In addition, keep in mind that we know as a point of comparison, Brecksville-Broadview Heights employs 64 educational aides (17.2 per 1000 students), the state average
is 7.2 per 1000 students, and the average of your identified comparable districts
is 11.8 per 1000 students. If the district were to consolidate aide positions to match the average of comparable districts, this would mean employing 44 aides, a reduction of 20 positions resulting in a savings of $790,000 dollars annually (based on reported information from the Treasurer that the average cost for an aide is $39,500
annually). Keep in mind that aides desired by buildings for general educational purposes might be funded and approved but should not be SPED cost-centered staffing, nor should they be focused on SPED students per se. Note supporting statements for this recommendation in item C of the Executive Summary above.

D. Intervention Specialists: While the caseloads for ISs appears reasonable, we would recommend that the District investigate and consider balancing caseloads by building. There is an uneven distribution of caseloads across buildings.

23

Specific to Middle School and High School

1. Attention should be given to SWDs transition from 4th to 5th grade and 8th to 9th. We understand a significant amount of learning time is lost during the first month of school as staff sort through issues that should have been processed prior to the school year. We recommend the affected staff with leadership support, devise a transition plan for these students to avoid the loss of instructional time upon moving to the new building level.

2. At the Middle School, there was little evidence of differentiation for social studies and science. The aides appeared to be directed to use the same materials and methods at a modified pace. It is recommended that professional development be provided on strategies to modify social studies and science instruction as per IEP evidence-related needs.

3. Regarding curricular materials at the Middle School, the CPM program used in fifth grade appeared most beneficial for the above average learners. Students were expected to transition from iReady Math to CPM. Unfortunately, there is a significant skill leap needed to transition successfully from iReady Math to CPM. Struggling learners are left with gaps in learning and teachers are forced to supplement with materials that have not been approved by the district. Interestingly, it was observed that teachers used the district mandated materials less than 40% of the time, preferring rather to use teacher chosen worksheets and packets.

There was evidence that the district explored the implementation of the online programs, Read 180 and Achieve 3000 however; there was no evidence that these programs are presently in practice. If iReady has replaced the above-mentioned programs, it is an effective standards-based, evidence-based intervention that is a reliable, valid online program with an intervention component.

Unique Learning System and STAR (Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research) were programs used for students with autism. For the rest of the MH population, it was unclear as to what programs are available for instruction. It appears that the Edmark reading program materials are available although presently not being used.

While there appears to be careful consideration given to exploring reading intervention programs, it is recommended that an increase in math intervention programs be considered. Typically teachers not using approved curricula and materials is an indicator that they were not adequately included in the process of designing the curriculum, nor then in the selection of the best materials to implement that curriculum. It is recommended that curriculum development and materials selection include the necessary staff constituencies such that teachers will follow the district’s chosen curriculum, use the approved basal materials, and then only use supplemental materials with content constituency approval. This would ensure fidelity and uniformity across buildings. It is also recommended that professional development be provided for staff with regard to all curriculum and programing with careful attention to which programs are best suited to meet the needs of which students. For example; Wonderworks can be used for both SPED and RTI – tier one students.

24

4. At the High School, a broad spectrum of services was identified and observed. However, there seem to be limited options for students in the low-average academic range, particularly noted in math. We would recommend an expansion of co-teaching options to meet the needs of all students and an analysis of elective availability for SWDs to ensure equal opportunities for those students.

Specific to Preschool-Elementary

1. In regards to curriculum, the reading benchmark assessment, DRA2, was used to track reading levels in the resource room. There was ample evidence of both general education programing and leveled literacy intervention including: iReady, Foundations, Fountas and Pinnell Reading Program, Wonders, and Wonderworks (an intervention program proven to provide support for struggling readers) and the Wilson Reading System. All of the above programs are researched based and proven valid and reliable. However; it appeared that teachers used the district mandated materials less than 40% of the time, preferring rather to use teacher chosen worksheets and packets. Typically teachers not using approved curricula and materials is an indicator that they were not adequately included in the process of designing the curriculum, nor then in the selection of the best materials to implement that curriculum. It is recommended that curriculum development and materials selection include the necessary staff constituencies such that teachers will follow the district’s chosen curriculum, use the approved basal materials, and then only use supplemental materials with content constituency approval. This would ensure fidelity and uniformity across buildings.

Additionally, while there was evidence of teachers with Wilson certification, it was observed that teachers make the decision whether or not to use the reading strategies outlined in the Wilson program. It is recommended that Wilson trained teachers should he held accountable to follow the Wilson intervention program with small intervention reading groups.

2. In regards to teaching models, while there are several co-teaching model options, it was observed that most often the general education teacher was the lead teacher while the SPED teacher circulates to offer reinforcement and feedback. It is recommended that professional development be provided to include an understanding of other various co-teaching models including: team teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and station teaching. It should be noted that co-teaching is most effective when teachers are given common planning time to prepare co-teaching strategies and expectations.

Small group instruction was observed, but this instruction presented distraction either because of the location of the group in the classroom or the lack of efficient transitioning to the group. It is recommended that implementation of an increased continuum of services, including flexible resource rooms, be implemented such that students are provided scaffolding in varying levels with the least amount of distraction.

It was observed that there was an overreliance on the traditional delivery of instruction, with limited differentiation at the elementary level. In almost every classroom we observed, there was an overuse of teacher chosen worksheets and packets. It is recommended that while supplemental materials can prove helpful in scaffolding instruction for struggling learners, a

25

clear list of district-approved supplement materials should be developed and communicated to instructional staff.

3. Paraprofessional training for medically fragile students is important, yet doesn’t appear to occur to any effective degree. Aides described learning on-the-job about most everything. We recommend a review of how the District on boards these important employees and how they can be better prepared on their first day of student contact.

26

Vision for the Future

An analysis of the Brecksville-Broadview Heights Special Education Department within the context of the larger school system identified what we believe are four important themes: vision and strategic plan; communication; consistency in programs, protocols, and procedures; and improved relationships. Since it is typically not feasible to solve a multitude of issues at the same time, American Educational Consultants offers the following phased recommendations for your consideration.

Phase I Recommendations: Summer/Fall 2020

1. Listening Groups: The Listening Groups proposed by the Superintendent should yield valuable information related to parent’s concerns. In addition, Listening Groups of staff should be considered. Both these initiatives should lead into Phase II, item 1.

2. Address Pupil Personnel Director professional credibility issues.

3. Recruit and hire for two new Coordinator positions [See p.17, item 18(A)].

4. Develop a timeline for the development of a fully implemented MTSS/RTI program.

5. Provide guidelines and professional development for building administration to ensure that each of the buildings has a knowledgeable, qualified, and empowered administrator to oversee the provision of services for students.

6. As an administrative team, plan out the Professional Development by district and school for all staff for the 2020-21 school year.

7. Enlist the Technology team to explore data collection software options to be placed in the FY 20-21 Budget for implementation in the summer of 2020.

27

Phase II Recommendations: Winter 2020/Spring 2021

1. Taking the results of Phase I, item 1 (above), special education leadership should develop a quasi-strategic plan with the input and approval of those Listening Groups for implementation. This should address the rowing in the same direction need.

2. The district administrative team should review this report and use the information provided to develop a comprehensive 3-5 year plan for the children in the Brecksville-Broadview Heights Schools.

3. Using the timeline created in the summer of 2019 as a guide, begin to create policies, procedures and processes related to MTSS/RTI, including a behavioral health/mental health component.

4. Using the timeline created during the summer of 2020, organize a district Special Education team with a representative from all levels to organize and build a district Special Education procedural manual. This manual should include a plan for transitions from school to school.

In summary, we estimate that it will take a concerted effort, collaboration and planning to move the Brecksville-Broadview Heights City School District forward in a positive manner with regards to Special Education. Based upon the data and our visitation, we believe that this community has all of the tools needed to make needed changes for students, staff and parents.

It is our sincere hope that this report will be an asset to the future of education for the entire Brecksville-Broadview Heights school community.

28

Appendix A Key

Table 1: District Wide Enrollment Info:

Table 1.2: Elementary School Elementary Enrollment Data:

Table 1.3 Brecksville-Broadview Heights Middle School

Table 1.4 Brecksville-Broadview Heights High School

Table 1.5 % of SWD students, by building

Table 2: Attendance Rate of Students in Brecksville-Broadview Heights

Table 2.1 Attendance for SWD (by school)

Table 3: Educators within District (compared to state averages)

Table 3.1: Educators with comparables (per 1,000 students)

Table 4: Mobility Rates (by school)

Table 5: % SWD with comparables

Table 6: Attendance Rates with Comparables

Table 8: Mobility Rates with Comparables-Taken from ODE State Report Card

Table 8: BBH District Wide Enrollment (by school, disability, and placement) Information taken from District Wide Data

Table 8.1- Chippewa Elementary Enrollment by Disability

Table 8.2- Highland Elementary Enrollment by Disability

Table 8.3- Hilton Elementary Enrollment by Disability

Table 8.4- BBH Middle School Enrollment by Disability

Table 8.5- BBH High School Enrollment by Disability

Table 8.6- District Totals by Sp. Ed. Identification - Enrollment by Disability

Table 8.7 - From District: Student Identification by Building

Table 9- Achievement Data (with comparables):

Table 9.1: BBH SWD Dropout by School Year

Table 10- PT Hours by School (2019-2020 School Year)

Table 10.1 SLP Hours by School (2019-2020 School Year)

29

Table 10.2 OT Hours by School (2019-2020 School Year)

Table 11- BBH SWD Discipline Data 2018-2019 School Year

Table 12: Behavioral Coach Support (contracted through PEP)

Table 13: # of Sp. Ed. Teachers / Caseload #’s by Building:

Table 14: Progress Data (Overall, with lowest 20% of students, and SWD)

Table 15: Achievement Data with Comparables:

Table/Graph 16: SY19 District Level Disaggregated scores (BBH, All students vs SWD) BBH- Grade 3, Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

Table/Graph 16.1- BBH Grade 4 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

Table/Graph 16.2- BBH Grade 5 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

Table/Graph 16.3-BBH Grade 6 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

Table/Graph 16.4- BBH Grade 7 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

Table/Graph 16.5- BBH Grade 8 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

Table/Graph 16.6-BBH High School Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

Table/Graph 17- Achievement Data with Comparable Districts (All Students vs. SWD)

Table/Graph 17.1- Grade 3 Achievement Data

Table/Graph 17.2- Grade 4 Achievement Data

Table/Graph 17.3- Grade 5 Achievement Data

Table/Graph 17.4- Grade 6 Achievement Data

Table/Graph 17.5 Grade 7 Achievement Data

Table/Graph 17.6 Grade 8 Achievement Data

Table/Graph 17.7- High School Achievement

30

Students with
	
Disabilities

Appendix A

Brecksville-Broadview Heights Data

Table 1: District Wide Enrollment Info:

	# of Student
	% of students
	
	Students with Disabilities
			378
			10.2%
		
Economics Disadvantage
	439
	11.8%
	
English Learner
	84
	2.2%
	
All Students
	3,725

District Provided Data

Table 1.2: Elementary School Elementary Enrollment Data:

Hilton #
	
Hilton %
	
Highland #
	
Highland %
	
Chippewa #
	
Chippewa %
	
Central %
	
Central %

69
	
18.5%
	
37
	
12.8%
	
20
	
6.4%
	
68
	
12.2%

Economics Disadvantage
	
45
	
12.1%
	
45
	
15.5%
	
22
	
7.3%
	
84
	
15.2%

English Learner
	
17
	
4.6%
	
20
	
6.8%
	
0
	
0%
	
12
	
2.2%

All Students
	
370
		
291
		
306
	
306
	
556

District Provided Data

Table 1.3 Brecksville-Broadview Heights Middle School

	# of students
	% of students
	
	Students with Disabilities
			87
			9.7%

Economic Disadvantage
	122
	13.5%
	
English Learner
	15
	1.6%
	
Total Enrollment
	905

District Provided Data

31

Table 1.4 Brecksville-Broadview Heights High School

	# of students
	% of students
	
	Students with Disabilities
			97
			7.5%

Economic Disadvantage
	120
	9.2%
	
English Learner
	12
	1%
	
Total Enrollment
	1,296

District Provided Data

Table 1.5 % of SWD students, by building

School
	# of Students SWD
	% of students SWD
	
Hilton Elementary School
	69
	18.5%
	
Highland Drive Elementary
	37
	12.8%
	
Chippewa Elementary
	37
	12.8%
	
Central Elementary
	68
	12.2%
	
BBH Middle
	87
	9.7%
	
BBH High
	97
	7.5%
	
	District Wide
			378
			10.2%

State Average
	n/a
	14.9%
	
National Average
	n/a
	12.9%

District Provided Data

32

Table 2: Attendance Rate of Students in Brecksville-Broadview Heights

Attendance Rate
	% of time attending building
	
	Students with Disabilities
			94.4%

Economic Disadvantage
	94.4%
	
English Learner
	96%
	
All Students
	95.7%

District Provided Data

Table 2.1 Attendance for SWD (by school)

School
	% of students SWD
	% of time attending building
	Mobility for SWD %
	
Hilton Elementary School
	18.5%
	95.4%
	6.5%
	
Highland Drive Elementary
	12.8%
	94.1%
	5.1%
	
Chippewa Elementary
	12.8%
	95.6%
	2.8%
	
Central Elementary
	12.2%
	94.9%
	3.4%
	
BBH Middle
	9.7%
	94.9%
	3.2%
	
BBH High
	7.5%
	93.3%
	6.1%
	
	District Wide
			10.2%
			94.4%
			8.6%

State Average
	14.9%
			
National Average
	12.9%

District Provided Data

33

Table 3: Educators within District (compared to state averages):

Position
	# of positions
	Per 1000 Students
	State Average per 1000 Students
	
School Counselors
	9.1
	2.4
	2.3
	
School Psychologists
	4.6
	1.2
	1.2
	
Physical/Occupational Therapists
	0.0
	0.0
	0.9
	
General Education Teachers
	147.0
	39.5
	45.7
	
Special Education Teachers
	41.6
	11.2
	13.4
	
Teacher Aides
	64.0
	17.2
	7.2
	
ELL Specialists
	1.0
	0.3
	0.4
	
Adaptive Physical Education Teachers
	0.0
	0.0
	0.2
	
Speech Language Pathologists
	6.7
	1.8
	1.5

Taken from ODE State Report Card

34

Table 3.1: Educators with comparables (per 1,000 students)

Position
	
Aurora
	
North Royalton
	
Twinsburg
	
Hudson
	
Nordonia
	
BBH
	
State Average per 1000 Students

School Counselors
	
2.4
	
2.5
	
3.3
	
2.8
	
2.8
	
2.4
	
2.3

School Psychologists
	
1.0
	
1.5
	
1.0
	
1.2
	
1.1
	
1.2
	
1.2

Physical/

Occupational Therapists
	
0.6
	
0.8
	
0.2
	
1.3
	
0.0
	
0.0
	
0.9

Special Education Teachers
	
9.3
	
9.0
	
8.7
	
15.6
	
10.9
	
11.2
	
13.4

Teacher Aides
	
0.0
	
9.8
	
11.0
	
18.6
	
7.7
	
17.2
	
7.2

ELL Specialists
	
0.2
	
0.3
	
0.0
	
0.0
	
0.0
	
0.3
	
0.4

Adaptive Physical Education Teachers
	
0.0
	
0.0
	
0.2
	
0.0
	
0.0
	
0.0
	
0.2

Speech Language Pathologists
	
1.7
	
1.2
	
1.0
	
1.8
	
1.1
	
1.8
	
1.5

Taken from ODE State Report Card

35

Table 4: Mobility Rates (by school)

School
	% of students SWD
	Mobility % for School
	Mobility % for SWD
	
Hilton Elementary School
	18.5%
	16.9%
	6.5%
	
Highland Drive El.
	12.8%
	5.4%
	5.1%
	
Chippewa Elementary
	12.8%
	9.5%
	2.8%
	
Central Elementary
	12.2%
	4.3%
	3.4%
	
BBH Middle
	9.7%
	8.9%
	3.2%
	
BBH High
	7.5%
	2.5%
	6.1%
	
	District Wide
			10.2%
			3.4%
			8.6%

State Average
	14.9%
			
National Average
	12.9%

Taken from ODE State Report Card

Table 5: % SWD with Comparables

District
	
Total Enrollment
	
# of SWD
	
% SWD

Aurora
	
2,948
	
336
	
11.4%

North Royalton
	
3,930
	
410
	
10.4%

Twinsburg
	
4,185
	
472
	
11.3%

Hudson
	
4,575
	
657
	
14.4%

Nordonia
	
3,523
	
404
	
11.5%

BBH
	
3,725
	
378
	
10.2%

State Average
	
n/a
	
n/a
	
14.9%

National Average
	
n/a
	
n/a
	
12.9%

36

Table 6: Attendance Rates with Comparables

District
	
Attendance Rate (all students)
	
Attendance Rate (SWD)

Aurora
	
96.3%
	
95.6%

North Royalton
	
95.8%
	
94.1%

Twinsburg
	
95.7%
	
94%

Hudson
	
96%
	
95%

Nordonia
	
95.7%
	
94.8%

BBH
	
95.7%
	
94.4%

Taken from ODE State Report Card

Table 7: Mobility Rates with Comparables

District
	
Mobility Rate (all students)
	
Mobility Rate (SWD)

Aurora
	
3.3%
	
3.7%

North Royalton
	
4.7%
	
10.3%

Twinsburg
	
4.4%
	
9.1%

Hudson
	
2.9%
	
5.5%

Nordonia
	
3.3%
	
3.7%

BBH
	
3.4%
	
8.6%

Taken from ODE State Report Card

37

Table 8: BBH District Wide Enrollment (by school, disability, and placement) Information taken from District Wide Data

8.1- Chippewa Elementary Enrollment by Disability

Grade
	
MD
	
Sp/Lang
	
Ortho
	
ED
	
SLD
	
ASD
	
OHI (Minor)

PK
	
1
	
2
	
1
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
1

1
	
1
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
3
	
2
	
0

2
	
0
	
4
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
1
	
0

3
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
2
	
0
	
3

4
	
0
	
2
	
0
	
0
	
5
	
2
	
1

Total
	
2
	
10
	
1
	
1
	
11
	
5
	
5

District Provided Data

8.2- Highland Elementary Enrollment by Disability

Grade
	
MD
	
Sp/Lang
	
SLD
	
ASD
	
OHI (Minor)

PK
	
1
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
0

1
	
0
	
4
	
0
	
1
	
1

2
	
0
	
4
	
1
	
1
	
1

3
	
0
	
5
	
1
	
1
	
1

4
	
0
	
1
	
4
	
0
	
2

Total
	
1
	
15
	
6
	
3
	
6

District Provided Data

8.3- Hilton Elementary Enrollment by Disability

Grade
	
MD
	
Sp/Lang
	
SLD
	
ASD
	
OHI (Minor)

PK
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
1
	
1

1
	
1
	
3
	
3
	
0
	
1

2
	
0
	
4
	
3
	
1
	
2

3
	
1
	
0
	
1
	
1
	
1

4
	
0
	
3
	
4
	
0
	
0

Total
	
2
	
12
	
11
	
3
	
5

District Provided Data

38

District
	
Total

8.4- BBH Middle School Enrollment by Disability

Grade
	
MD
	
Deafness
	
Sp/Lang
	
Ortho
	
ED
	
ID
	
SLD
	
ASD
	
OHI (Minor)

5
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
1
	
3
	
18
	
3
	
6

6
	
0
	
1
	
5
	
0
	
0
	
2
	
15
	
4
	
7

7
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
1
	
13
	
3
	
6

8
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
10
	
3
	
5

Total
	
1
	
2
	
6
	
1
	
1
	
7
	
56
	
13
	
24

District Provided Data

8.5- BBH High School Enrollment by Disability

Grade
	
MD
	
Deafness
	
Sp/Lang
	
Ortho.
	
ED
	
ID
	
SLD
	
ASD
	
TBI
	
OHI (Minor)

9
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
19
	
3
	
1
	
7

10
	
2
	
1
	
5
	
1
	
1
	
3
	
12
	
1
	
0
	
7

11
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
5
	
12
	
4
	
0
	
3

12
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
1
	
2
	
8
	
1
	
0
	
5

23s
	
4
	
0
	
0
	
0
	
0
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
2
	
2

Total
	
7
	
2
	
6
	
1
	
3
	
12
	
51
	
9
	
3
	
24

District Provided Data

8.6- District Totals by Sp. Ed. Identification - Enrollment by Disability

School
	
MD
	
Deafness
	
Sp/Lang
	
Ortho
	
ED
	
ID
	
SLD
	
ASD
	
TBI
	
OHI Minor

Chippewa
	
2
	
0
	
10
	
1
	
1
	
0
	
11
	
5
	
0
	
5

Highland
	
1
	
0
	
15
	
0
	
0
	
0
	
6
	
3
	
0
	
6

Hilton
	
2
	
0
	
11
	
0
	
0
	
0
	
11
	
3
	
0
	
5

Middle School
	
1
	
2
	
6
	
1
	
1
	
7
	
56
	
13
	
0
	
24

High School
	
7
	
2
	
6
	
1
	
3
	
12
	
51
	
9
	
3
	
24

13
	
4
	
48
	
3
	
5
	
19
	
135
	
33
	
3
	
64

District Provided Data

39

Table 8.7 - From District: Student Identification by Building

(taken from 11/22/2019 Federal Student Count)

Area of Disability
	Counts
	Chip
	High
	Hilt
	MS
	HS
	PS
	Total
	
3-5 Year olds w/ disability
	54
								
Multiple Disabilities (MD)
	14
	1
	1
	2
	1
	7
		12
	
Deaf-Blindness
	0
								
Deafness (HI)
	4
				2
	2
		4
	
Visual Impairments (VI)
	0
								
Speech and Language Impairments (SLI)
	
37
	
8
	
14
	
11
	
2
	
2
	
31
	
68
	
Orthopedic Impairments
	2
				1
	1
		2
	
Emotional Disturbance (SBH)
			9
			1
					1
			4
				6

Intellectual Disabilities (ID)
	19
				7
	12
		19
	
Specific Learning Disabilities
	139
	8
	6
	7
	56
	54
	1
	132
	
Autism
	46
	5
	4
	2
	13
	9
	3
	36
	
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
	3
					3
		3
	
Other Health Impaired (Major)
	0
								
Other Health Impaired (Minor)
	61
	3
	4
	5
	24
	21
	2
	59
	
Developmental Delay
	0
						12
	12
	
Total
				2
	6
		29
			27
			107
			115
			49
			353

District Provided Data

40

Table 9- Achievement Data (with Comparables):

The Gap Closing component shows how well schools are meeting the performance expectations for our most vulnerable populations of students in English language arts, math, and graduation. It also measures how schools are doing in helping English learners to become proficient in English.

SWD Students
	
Aurora
	
North Royalton
	
Twinsburg
	
Hudson
	
Nordonia
	
BBH

ELA
	
79.9%
	
67.1%
	
74.2%
	
80.7%
	
68.9%
	
70%

Math
	
77.9%
	
61.0%
	
68.8%
	
83%
	
64.5%
	
86.2%

Graduation Rate
	
86.4%
	
77.8%
	
89.7%
	
81.4%
	
90.0%
	
69%

Overall Grade
	
100%

A
	
100%

A
	
100%

A
	
100%

A
	
100%

A
	
85.0%

B

Taken from ODE State Report Card

Table 9.1: BBH SWD Dropout by School Year

School Year
	
Total # of Drop Outs
	
# of Dropouts on IEP

2017-2018
	
3
	
1

2018-2019
	
7
	
3

Last 2 years
	
10
	
4

Taken from ODE State Report Card

41

Table 10- PT Hours by School (2019-2020 School Year) (PT Services are provided by an outside provider.)

School
	
PT Minutes per Month

Chippewa
	
980

Hilton
	
590

Highland
	
240

Pre School
	
840

Middle School
	
35

High School
	
880

Total Minutes/Month
	
3,565

District Provided Data

Table 10.1 SLP Hours by School (2019-2020 School Year)

School
	
SLP Minutes per Month

Chippewa
	
4,000

Hilton
	
6,320

Highland
	
5,890

Pre School
	
6,040

Middle School
	
8,050

High School
	
4,565

Total Minutes/Month
	
34,865

District Provided Data

42

Table 10.2 OT Hours by School (2019-2020 School Year) (OT Services are provided by an outside provider.)

School
	
OT Minutes per Month

Chippewa
	
n/r

Hilton
	
980

Highland
	
980

Pre School
	
1,140

Middle School
	
890

High School
	
1,320

Total Minutes/Month
	
5,310

District Provided Data

(2018-19 School year (includes ESY costs but I didn't count the number of students twice.) $321,972.38 servicing 151 students)

43

Table 11- BBH SWD Discipline Data 2018-2019 School Year

Out-of-School Suspensions	In-School Suspensions

Behavior causing discipline
	
Discipline Days
	
Discipline Occurrences
	
# of students disciplined
	
Discipline Days
	
Discipline Occurrences
	
# of students disciplined

Truancy
	
2
	
1
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
0

Fighting/ Violence
	
38
	
15
	
15
	
2
	
1
	
1

Use/Possessions of Weapon/ Firearms
	
10
	
1
	
1
	
0
	
0
	
0

Use/Possession of Tobacco
	
5
	
3
	
3
	
0
	
0
	
0

Use/Possession of Drug other Tobacco/Alcohol
	
26
	
4
	
4
	
0
	
0
	
0

Disobedience/ Disruptive Behavior
	
30
	
10
	
10
	
0
	
0
	
0

Harassment
	
11
	
3
	
3
	
4
	
2
	
2

Total
	
122
	
37
	
37
	
6
	
3
	
3

District Provided Data

Table 12: Behavioral Coach Support (contracted through PEP)

# of Position
	
Costs (approx.)
	
# of ED students district wide

3
	
$62,000
	
6

-approx. $115,500 for 140 days (2019-20)

District Provided Data

44

Table 13: # of Sp. Ed. Teachers / Caseload #’s by Building:

School
	
# of SWD
	
# of Sp. Ed. Teachers
	
Caseload Average

Hilton
	
42
	
3
	
14

Highland
	
19
	
3
	
6.3

Chippewa
	
31
	
3
	
10.3

Middle School
	
106
	
11
	
9.6

High School
	
130
	
8
	
16.3

District Provided Data

45

Table 14: Progress Data (Overall, with lowest 20% of students, and SWD)

School
	
Overall Progress Score
	
Lowest 20% Progress Score
	
SWD Progress Score

Hilton
	
n/r
	
n/r
	
n/r

Highland
	
n/r
	
n/r
	
n/r

Chippewa
	
n/r
	
n/r
	
n/r

Middle
	
A
	
C
	
A

High School
	
A
	
C
	
A

ODE State Report Card

Table 15: Achievement Data with Comparables:

District
	
Achievement
	
Progress
	
Gap Closing
	
Graduation Rate
	
Improving At-Risk K-3 Readers
	
Prepared for Success
	
Overall Grade
	
% SWD

Aurora
	
B
	
A
	
A
	
A
	
n/r
	
B
	
A
	
11.4%

North Royalton
	
B
	
B
	
A
	
A
	
C
	
C
	
B
	
10.4%

Twinsburg
	
B
	
B
	
A
	
A
	
C
	
C
	
B
	
11.3%

Hudson
	
B
	
A
	
A
	
A
	
B
	
A
	
A
	
14.4%

Nordonia
	
C
	
B
	
A
	
A
	
D
	
D
	
B
	
11.5%

BBH
	
A
	
A
	
B
	
A
	
C
	
B
	
B
	
10.2%

ODE State Report Card

46

Table/Graph 16: SY19 District Level Disaggregated scores (BBH, All students vs SWD) BBH- Grade 3, Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

For all of the charts/tables under this section, the numbers provided are a percentage of students (broken into all students and SWD) who tested proficient or above on state testing.

	
ELA 3rd Grade
	
Math 3rd Grade

All Students
	
94.5
	
>95

SWD
	
60.9
	
65.2

ODE State Report Card

Table/Graph 16.1- BBH Grade 4 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

	
ELA Gr. 4
	
Math Gr. 4

All Students
	
>95
	
>95

SWD
	
44.4
	
77.1

ODE State Report Card

47

Table/Graph 16.2- BBH Grade 5 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

	
ELA Gr. 5
	
Math Gr. 5
	
Science Gr. 5

All Students
	
95
	
95
	
93.7

SWD
	
59.4
	
60
	
60.7

ODE State Report Card

Table/Graph 16.3-BBH Grade 6 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

	
ELA Gr. 6
	
Math Gr. 6

All Students
	
89.3
	
93.8

SWD
	
42.3
	
80.8

ODE State Report Card

48

Table/Graph 16.4- BBH Grade 7 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

	
ELA Grade 7
	
Math Grade 7

All Students
	
95
	
95

SWD
	
65
	
63.2

ODE State Report Card

Table/Graph 16.5- BBH Grade 8 Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

	
ELA Grade 8
	
Math Grade 8
	
Science Grade 8

All Students
	
87
	
95
	
94.3

SWD
	
31.1
	
74.2
	
56.3

ODE State Report Card

49

Table/Graph 16.6-BBH High School Achievement Data- All Students vs. SWD

	
History
	
Gov.
	
ELA I
	
ELA II
	
Algebra 1
	
Geometry
	
Biology

All Students
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
90.7
	
95

SWD
	
82.8
	
92.3
	
68.4
	
70.4
	
68.2
	
47.6
	
80

ODE State Report Card

50

Table/Graph 17- Achievement Data with Comparable Districts (All Students vs. SWD)

Table/Graph 17.1- Grade 3 Achievement Data

District
	
ELA Grade 3
	
Math Grade 3

Twinsburg All Students
	
92.9
	
90.7

Twinsburg SWD
	
75
	
62.5

Nordonia Hills All Students
	
91.2
	
87

Nordonia Hills SWD
	
33.3
	
25.6

Hudson City All Students
	
94.3
	
95

Hudson City SWD
	
51.7
	
62.1

Aurora All Students
	
92.7
	
83.2

Aurora SWD
	
46.2
	
34.6

North Royalton All Students
	
92.6
	
95

North Royalton SWD
	
56.5
	
39.1

BBH All Students
	
94.5
	
95

BBH SWD
	
60.9
	
65.2

ODE State Report Card

51

Table/Graph 17.2- Grade 4 Achievement Data

District
	
ELA Grade 4
	
Math Grade 4

Twinsburg All Students
	
80.1
	
95

Twinsburg SWD
	
59.3
	
92.6

Nordonia Hills All Students
	
95
	
96

Nordonia Hills SWD
	
50
	
58.3

Hudson City All Students
	
91.4
	
95

Hudson City SWD
	
38.5
	
71.8

Aurora All Students
	
91
	
95

Aurora SWD
	
64
	
64

North Royalton All Students
	
91.8
	
95

North Royalton SWD
	
43.8
	
62.5

BBH All Students
	
95
	
95

BBH SWD
	
44.4
	
77.1

ODE State Report Card

52

Table/Graph 17.3- Grade 5 Achievement Data

District
	
ELA Grade 5
	
Math Grade 5
	
Grade 5 Science

Twinsburg All Students
	
87.7
	
89.3
	
81

Twinsburg SWD
	
45.2
	
41.9
	
38.7

Nordonia Hills All Students
	
89.8
	
89.3
	
85.3

Nordonia Hills SWD
	
38.5
	
53.8
	
53.8

Hudson City All Students
	
95
	
95
	
90.9

Hudson City SWD
	
62.7
	
74.6
	
66.1

Aurora All Students
	
95
	
88.2
	
94.9

Aurora SWD
	
50
	
36.7
	
46.7

North Royalton All Students
	
92.7
	
88.5
	
90

North Royalton SWD
	
34.4
	
21.9
	
43.8

BBH All Students
	
95
	
95
	
93.7

BBH SWD
	
59.4
	
60
	
67.7

ODE State Report Card

53

Table/Graph 17.4- Grade 6 Achievement Data

District
	
ELA Grade 6
	
Math Grade 6

Twinsburg All Students
	
81.2
	
86.4

Twinsburg SWD
	
32.3
	
53.3

Nordonia Hills All Students
	
84.2
	
89.2

Nordonia Hills SWD
	
32.5
	
31.7

Hudson City All Students
	
92.8
	
93

Hudson City SWD
	
50
	
58.3

Aurora All Students
	
86.9
	
91.3

Aurora SWD
	
40
	
54.2

North Royalton All Students
	
87.1
	
88.5

North Royalton SWD
	
33.3
	
37

BBH All Students
	
89.3
	
93.3

BBH SWD
	
42.3
	
80.8

ODE State Report Card

54

Table/Graph 17.5 Grade 7 Achievement Data

District
	
ELA Grade 7
	
Math Grade 7

Twinsburg All Students
	
95
	
87

Twinsburg SWD
	
47.2
	
27.8

Nordonia Hills All Students
	
88.3
	
81.7

Nordonia Hills SWD
	
42.9
	
40

Hudson City All Students
	
95
	
95

Hudson City SWD
	
67.4
	
70.5

Aurora All Students
	
95
	
90

Aurora SWD
	
59.1
	
59.1

North Royalton All Students
	
91.3
	
85.6

North Royalton SWD
	
22.6
	
6.7

BBH All Students
	
95
	
95

BBH SWD
	
65
	
63.2

ODE State Report Card

55

Table/Graph 17.6 Grade 8 Achievement Data

District
	
ELA Grade 8
	
Math Grade 8
	
Science Grade 8

Twinsburg All Students
	
90.2
	
94.1
	
90.5

Twinsburg SWD
	
39.1
	
40
	
40

Nordonia Hills All Students
	
83.5
	
83.7
	
79.9

Nordonia Hills SWD
	
37.8
	
47.2
	
37.8

Hudson City All Students
	
93.2
	
85.3
	
92.3

Hudson City SWD
	
57.8
	
55.2
	
65.6

Aurora All Students
	
94.2
	
85
	
95

Aurora SWD
	
38.7
	
85.3
	
64.5

North Royalton All Students
	
91.6
	
94.4
	
93

North Royalton SWD
	
24.2
	
52.9
	
27.3

BBH All Students
	
87
	
95
	
94.3

BBH SWD
	
31.3
	
74.2
	
27.3

ODE District Report Card

56

Table/Graph 17.7- High School Achievement

District
	
History
	
Govt.
	
ELA I
	
ELA II
	
Algebra 1
	
Geometry
	
Biology

Twinsburg All Students
	
95
	
94.5
	
90.8
	
89.8
	
88.3
	
73.9
	
88.9

Twinsburg SWD
	
63.3
	
50
	
45.5
	
23.3
	
32.4
	
26.7
	
43.8

Nordonia Hills All Students
	
93.8
	
90.6
	
90.7
	
87.1
	
86.3
	
78.8
	
92.7

Nordonia Hills SWD
	
55.3
	
36
	
54.3
	
38.6
	
25
	
28.9
	
37.6

Hudson City All Students
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
93.1
	
n/r
	
95

Hudson City SWD
	
82.3
	
85.4
	
70.2
	
77.8
	
47.7
	
n/r
	
67.1

Aurora All Students
	
95
	
88.6
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
85.4
	
95

Aurora SWD
	
63.3
	
33.3
	
74.2
	
56.7
	
74.5
	
37.9
	
62.9

North Royalton All Students
	
95
	
93.7
	
91.2
	
89.5
	
86.6
	
84.2
	
95

North Royalton SWD
	
64.7
	
52.2
	
34.5
	
40
	
18.5
	
22.2
	
57.1

BBH All Students
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
95
	
90.7
	
95

BBH SWD
	
82.8
	
92.3
	
68.4
	
70.4
	
68.2
	
47.6
	
80

ODE District Report Card

57

58

Appendix B Resources

1. Ohio Department of Education, Office of School Operations. District Profile Report

2. Ohio Department of Education State Site; https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534985.pdf

3. Brecksville-Broadview Heights District Provided Data (staffing, student count, related services data, etc.)

4. Ohio Department of Education District Data Profile (CUPP report), Source: Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 3301-51-09 Delivery of services.

5. A Workload Analysis Approach for Establishing Speech-Language Caseload Standards in the School: Position StatementAd Hoc Committee on Caseload Size; https://www.asha.org/policy/PS2002-00122/

6. SLP Caseload and Workload Characteristics, 2018 Survey, ASHA, https://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/Schools-2018-SLP-Caseload-and-Workload-Characteristics.pdf

7. RTI Action Network, What’s Your Plan? Accurate Decision Making within a Multi-Tier System of Supports: Critical Areas in Tier 1by Terri Metcalf, M.Ed., J.D., Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction/tier1/accurate-decision-making-within-a-multi-tier-system-of-supports-critical-areas-in-tier-1

8. PBIS: Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports http://www.pbis.org/

9. Negotiation Skills for Parents, Ohio Legal Rights (2002) pgs. 8-12

59

60

Appendix C

Acronyms used in the Document

Disability Codes

AU	Autism and Autism Spectrum including Asperger’s Syndrome DD	Developmental Disabilities; only applies to children ages 3-10 ED	Emotional Disturbance
HI	Hearing Impaired MD	Multiple Disabilities MR	Mental Retardation
OHI	Other Health Impaired Orth	Orthopedic Impairment
SLD	Specific Learning Disabilities
SLP	Speech: Speech/Language Impaired TBI	Traumatic Brain Injury
VI	Visually Impaired

ETR: Evaluation Team Report

FAPE: Free and Appropriate Public Education

FTE: Full Time Equivalent

IEP: Individualized Educational Plan

IS: Intervention Specialist(s)

LRE: Least Restrictive Environment

OT: Occupational Therapy

PT: Physical Therapy

SLP: Speech Language Pathologist

SPED: Special Education

SWD: Student(s) with a Disability

OOD: Out of District

61

62

Appendix D

Guidelines for Determining a Student with a Disability’s Need for a 1:1 Aide

The purpose of this following information is to provide guidance to assist IEP teams in determining a student with a disability’s need for a 1:1 aide. A recommendation for an individual aide is a significant programmatic decision and one that should only be made after a comprehensive discussion of other options considered and clear documentation of as to why those options are not appropriate. While, some students may temporarily need the support of a 1:1 aide to receive a free appropriate public education, for other students, the assignment of a 1:1 aide may be unnecessarily and inappropriately restrictive.

A goal for all students with disabilities is to promote and maximize independence. IEP teams are responsible for developing and implementing individualized education programs that promote such independence. When a team determines that a student needs a 1:1 aide, it should always be considered a time-limited recommendation and specific conditions/goals must be established to fade the use of the 1:1 aide.

1:1 aides should not be used as a substitute for certified, qualified teachers for an individual student or as a substitute for an appropriately developed and implemented behavioral intervention plan or as the primary staff member responsible for implementation of a behavioral intervention plan. While a teaching assistant may assist in related instructional work, primary instruction should be provided to the student by a certified teacher(s). A teacher aide may assist in the implementation of a behavioral intervention plan, but should not provide instructional services to a student.

Considerations for Determining if a Student Needs a 1:1 Aide

Each decision to recommend a 1:1 aide must weigh the factors of both (1) the student’s individual needs and (2) the available supports in the setting where the student’s IEP will be implemented. There are a number of important considerations that must be made by the team in regard to each of these factors. These include, but are not limited to, consideration of each of the following:

•	The student’s individual needs that require additional adult assistance.

•	The skills and goals the student is planned to achieve that will reduce or eliminate the need for the 1:1 aide.

•	The specific role (e.g., instructional, assistance with personal hygiene) that the aide will provide for the student.

63

•	Other natural supports, accommodations and/or services that could support the student to meet these needs (e.g., behavioral intervention plan; environmental accommodations or modifications; changes in scheduling; instructional materials in alternate formats; assistive technology devices; peer-to-peer supports).

•	The extent (e.g., portions of the school day) or circumstances (e.g., for transitions from class to class) the student would need the assistance of a 1:1 aide.

•	The potential benefits from assignment of the 1:1 aide and how these will be measured to determine continuation of the recommendation.

•	The potential negative impact of assignment of a 1:1 aide for the student (e.g., self-image, isolation and/or development of independence).

Roles and Responsibilities of the 1:1 Aide

When the decision is made that a student requires a 1:1 aide, school personnel must:

•	consider the qualifications of the individual (i.e., teaching assistant or teacher aide) that would be necessary to meet the needs of the student.

•	establish a plan to monitor the student’s progress toward the goals to be addressed by the assignment of the 1:1 aide and the student’s continuing need for the 1:1 aide;

•	consider, as appropriate, a plan for progressively reducing the support provided to the student and his or her dependence on an aide over time;

•	plan for substitutes to serve as the student’s 1:1 aide to cover staff absences in order to ensure the student receives the recommended IEP services of the 1:1 aide; and

•	ensure that the 1:1 aide has access to a copy of the student’s IEP, has been informed of his or her responsibilities for IEP implementation for the student and has received the professional development and supervision necessary to carry out these responsibilities.

Once a team recommends a 1:1 aide for an individual student, the staff person is expected to be in close proximity to and working with that student throughout the assigned period.

64

Checklist to Determine a Student's Need For a 1:1Aide

Health/Personal Care

•	Student requires non-medical specialized health care support (e.g., feeding, assistance with braces or prosthesis).
•	Student requires positioning or bracing multiple times daily.
•	Student requires health-related interventions multiple times daily. •	Student requires direct assistance with most personal care.

Behavior

Student presents with serious behavior problems with ongoing (daily) incidents of injurious behaviors to self and/or others or student runs away and student has a functional behavioral assessment and a behavioral intervention plan that is implemented with fidelity.

Instruction

Student cannot participate in a group without constant verbal and/or physical prompting to stay on task and follow directions.

Inclusion in General Education Classes

•	Student needs an adult in constant close proximity for direct instruction.
•	Student requires individualized assistance to transition to and from class more than 80 percent of the time.
•	Student needs an adult in close proximity to supervise social interactions with peers at all times.

65

1:1 Aide Planning Considerations and Recommendations

What are the needs of the student which necessitate the assignment of a 1:1 aide?
		
What skills and goals must the student achieve to reduce or eliminate the need for a 1:1 aide?
		
What are the potential benefits of the assignment of a 1:1 aide?
		
What is the potential negative impact of assignment of a 1:1 aide?
		
What role will 1:1 aide fulfill (e.g., instructional; behavior support; personal hygiene assistance)?
		
For what specific activities (e.g., toileting) and/or times of day (e.g., transition to and from the bus) is the aide needed? (See Attachment 3)
		
What qualifications of the individual (i.e., teaching assistant or teacher aide) is necessary to meet the needs of the student?
		
What is the plan to monitor the student’s progress toward the goals to be addressed by the assignment of the 1:1 aide and the student’s continuing need for the 1:1 aide?
		
What is the plan for progressively reducing the support provided to the student and his or her dependence on an aide over time?
		
If student’s 1:1 aide is absent, who will cover in order to ensure the student receives the recommended IEP services of the 1:1 aide or how will substitute staff support be arranged?
		
Who/how will 1:1 aide have access to a copy of the student’s IEP, and be informed of his or her responsibilities for IEP implementation for the student?
		
What, if any professional development and supervision will aide need to carry out these responsibilities?

66

Appendix E

GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS SEEKING IEP CHANGES

The Individuals with Disabilities Act mandates that school districts provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all students identified as disabled under the Act. An appropriate education has been deemed by the courts as “an education reasonably calculated to provide benefit” to meet a child’s needs. Therein lies the rub. Appropriate and reasonable are often defined differently by parents and school personnel. Nonetheless, effective communication can prevent escalating problems associated with the provision of FAPE. The goal must always be to solve questions in a positive manner and as quickly as possible.

Common disputes in special education revolve around eligibility, failure to provide FAPE, failure to implement the IEP, inappropriate discipline and placement. It is not unusual for parents and districts to have different academic and behavioral expectations for students. These differences cause strong emotions and high anxiety Therefore it is critical to solve these problems at the lowest level, before people become entrenched in their opinions and power struggles ensue.

The following is a list of communication styles by both parents and districts that often lead to a stalemate by one side or the other:
1. Poor or no follow up after a meeting has been held;
2. Failure of the meeting of the minds despite belief that this has occurred;
3. Intentional vagueness; misleading facts; withholding of information; misstating laws; 4. Intimidation; 1 parent shows up, usually the mother, and 16 school personnel show up
with no prior notice;
5. Body language; non-verbal eye rolling; heads down; folding of hands over chest during the entire meeting; placement of watch on the table; private conversations during large meetings;
6. Projecting arrogance: I already answered THAT!!!;
7. Credibility; based on competence and trustworthiness;
8. Patronization; comparing to children not subject of meeting; laughing at a parent’s suggestion; cost of educating child is made an issue; no positive discussion; and
9. Loss of trust; leads to fear for student; causes insecurity for all parties; relationship becomes worthless

When any of these processes usurp the subject of the meeting, the question becomes how to solve the situation before parents seek litigation. when you negotiate to resolve problems, you must put yourself in the other person’s position. Remember there is no “complete win” for either side, even if you proceed to litigation. Ask yourself, how does the other side see the problem? What are they afraid of? Listen more than you talk. Remember everyone wants to save face. No criticizing or judging. Only positive interaction will settle the concerns.
Unfortunately, parent and school conflicts are normal and inevitable. Your goal is to be positive and to avoid litigation.

67

68

Appendix F

Brecksville-Broadview Heights City School District Summary of Parent Input

Upon the request of the district, we sought input from parents, both through an online survey and an evening parent meeting, to gather their opinions on the strengths and areas for improvement in terms of special education in the BBHCSD. Neither appear to have resulted in scientifically reliable samples of opinions but both provided significant insights into the question of the degree to which the current instructional programming and administration for students with disabilities satisfies the needs of those students as seen from their parents’ perspectives.

As to the surveys and parent meeting themselves, we have used these same surveys and meetings in many schools around the country. They both typically provide valid and reliable information from parents of students with disabilities; information we can summarize for the school district and rely on with respect to our reporting of the district’s strengths and improvement opportunities as it strives to identify how it serves students with disabilities.

In this case, however, the online survey was compromised by responses that appear to have gone beyond parents of students with disabilities and appear to have been used as an opportunity by these same non-targeted responders to stuff the ballot box. Our security allows only one response from the device on which one gets to the survey site from the email solicitation that SWD parents were supposed to receive. In this case, however, without our knowledge an invitation to respond and the click-link was put onto the district’s website resulting in any number of non-targeted responders, which tainted the survey’s results significantly. This, in itself, is an indicator confirming the concerns parents (and staff) have on how special education programming is administered.

The online survey did yield poignant, specific and helpful responses, comments and recommendations from parents. Those responses and the input received from those in attendance at the evening parent meeting allow us to draw several conclusions.

69

In all, over 100 responses to the online survey were submitted and more than 40 parents attended the evening meeting. Combing through reliable input from both we conclude:

1. Some staff, specifically some teachers and SLPs, were appreciated and noted.

2. The fine reputation of the district was identified as a strength, as were some athletic programs and gifted programming.
3. Parents are dissatisfied with the special education program, more about how it is administered and the curriculum as opposed to how their children are taught.
4. Parents specifically point out innumerable moments when the school district administrator said, did and didn’t do, things that caused problems instead of solved problems.
5. Parents are frustrated with lack of communication, at being ignored, how IEP meetings are handled, the gaps in the spectrum of services, and a myriad of other issues that frankly demonstrate a complete lack of confidence in the work of the administrative head. SWD parents appear to feel very strongly that their children do not receive the same quality education that all other students in the district receive. These issues, in our opinion, cause their dissatisfaction with even moderate, minor gaps between their expectations and the district’s practices.
6. Parents who internally appealed their concerns to the superintendent’s office found a fair hearing and an appropriate resolution albeit still needing to get processed in the future through the administrative head they felt little confidence in.
7. Many specific recommendations parents made seemed quite appropriate. They included: a. Properly developing student IEPs to be individualized and goal-focused
b. Listening to parents and taking their input into account

c. Providing instructional services based on each child’s IEP, not on what program, what time slot is available
d. Having building administrators knowledgeable in special education

e. Getting answers in a timely manner from building administrators and special education administrative head at central office
f. Focusing on curriculum for SWDs being connected to general curriculum but adjusted appropriately for specific disabilities of each SPED student
g. Developing the same good reputation the district has for general education students, for SPED programming
h. Follow through on commitments to provide information and take actions i. Staffing buildings and central office should reflect the needs of properly
providing proper identification, IEPs, service plans and individualized instruction designed to provide opportunity for adequate progress for each student

70

Clearly a major overhaul in special education is required to improve the program to the degree that such improvements are appreciated by parents. Special Education administrative leadership both at central office and the building levels will require a significant upgrade in terms of handling the special issues that arise from and for students with disabilities. We do not find here a small cadre of dissatisfied parents; nor do we find unrealistic parental expectations; nor do we believe that minor adjustments in staffing or professional dispositions will solve the legitimate concerns we heard from parents. Rather it appears that significant consideration of who leads and how they do so: programming for identifying SWDs; designing service plans for instruction consistent with properly developed IEPs; supervising building level administrators for their proper SPED program knowledge, skills and dispositions; and responding to parental needs and inquiries, is a determination that can have a very significant impact on BBHCSD’s reputation and on the ability its SWDs reach their full potential.

71

Sample of Comments from Online Parent Survey

taken from more reliable time/date stamps as SWD parent input

1. I would like to have an intervention specialist who believes in my child and not just dismissing child’s potential because of his/her diagnosis/disabilities 2. I feel very disconnected with my child’s intervention specialist. She is very hard to approach and sometimes makes me concern if she really cares for my child 3. IEP meetings were disappointing each time because I get negative reports and complaints about my child (which is totally ok) but she is not willing to work on those behaviors she is complaining about in the classroom. 4. Child and intervention specialist should not be together more than one/two years unless it is requested by parents 5. Where is my 9weeks progress report? Been 11 weeks now but haven’t gotten the report. Frustrating that I have to seek those out rather than getting them

3/8/2020 9:39 PM

I wish teachers could follow the students for a couple years.

3/8/2020 1:05 AM

I would like to see the teachers respond to the students quicker than they do. The children get discouraged when the teachers want the kids to hurry up but then take their time to complete the entire assignment from the initial request to the final grade.

3/7/2020 9:09 PM

Better teacher/educational assistant to student ratio

3/7/2020 4:25 PM

Authority and therefore accountability within the leadership At the school level From the district leaders to implement the required solutions and resources to support the individuals and overall special education community’s needs. A recognized gold standard school should be meeting gold standard levels throughout the programs and not the bare minimum within the special education community. Hilton managed to implement a successful program for several years. Replicate success factors from their model. Small classroom sizes, qualified and passionate resources, ensuring these kids feel a part of the community and that they feel safe in their environment.

3/7/2020 4:06 PM

72

The academic program did not provide my child with adequate reading or math classes to reach their learning potential. The same material was repeated year after year. Very little homework was sent home. The high school needs a teacher who is striving to make sure the students are progressing by using new teaching ideas and not doing the same programming year after year. There was no opportunity to gain work skills in the high school and BBHHS is still lagging behind other local school districts that have a teacher dedicated to vocational training for special needs students.

3/6/2020 1:16 PM

For the High School: • More individualized lesson plans are needed so that each student can progress based on their own level rather than that of the group. • IEP goals need to be meaningfully worked on more than just at the time of collecting data points for reporting each quarter. There needs to be more accountability with teachers when goals are not being met or advanced. • There needs to be more help from the school district in creating/tracking transition goals (for life after high school). • One person should have a role in overseeing the special ed program to ensure a cohesive plan; there needs to be a single point of contact to approach when there are problems or issues to address. • Communication between teachers needs to be better to avoid similar topics from being taught at the same time in different classes, (eg Life Skills). • More electives are needed; a few new ones were finally introduced this year, but there is no confirmation they are continuing. The special ed students have had to re-take classes in order to fill up a schedule. • A case manager should be aware of a student’s status in each class they are taking – not just the ones that he or she is teaching. • We as parents feel we must follow-up with teachers and administrators to ensure that a proposed resolution to a concern or issue is actually implemented. In general for the District: • A more continuous, evidence-based curriculum is needed to have students’ progress as they move from building to building, teacher to teacher, and even among different years of the same teacher (especially for Reading and Math). • When students try to take classes outside of the special ed setting, there should already be a plan for a modified curriculum. Regular ed teachers try but often struggle in preparing such a plan. Special ed teachers and/or case managers should be involved before the class begins, not after there are problems. • There should be more training for special education assistants, including details on how they may need to help differently based on the disability of the student. • There should be more inclusion of special ed students within the student body, (classes, clubs, teams, activities, etc). Typical students have been supportive when given the chance, but there are not a lot of true opportunities.

3/5/2020 11:51 PM

Classes overcrowded and too many teachers in a single classroom. Speech cancelled for teacher’s absence or meetings. Takes too long to get tested and get help. (Administrator’s name deleted) doesn’t answer emails and is rude in conferences. Speech groups too big. Not working on IEP goals and using regular workbooks.

3/5/2020 9:09 PM

73

Better communication about students’ progress both good and bad or additional services needed;

3/5/2020 6:54 PM

1. New leadership in all aspects of special education (scheduling/course offerings, IEP growth and development, effective IEP meetings with every member of the team present, curricular updates and program improvements, teacher accountability, academic modifications for all classrooms, case manager responsibilities, administrator knowledge and communication, classroom visitations, etc....) that believe in the success of our children. 2. A consistent, non-subjective, (up-to-date) academic curriculum that defines individual growth to special education parents through each year of their schooling. It should align with the Ohio Academic Standards for children with developmental disabilities and bridge the gap between a child's individual developmental level and that of their typical peers. Knowledge of the typical child's curriculum (i.e. 3rd grade science, 2nd grade math, 7th grade health) must be understood by all special educators no matter what level they teach in our district. 3. Teacher (and Administrator) knowledge of each child's disability and how to effectively implement their individual needs into the (typical) classroom through properly leveled modifications and effective attainment. There is a strong need for inclusive classes and expanded curricular options at an academic level. 4. An on-site behavior specialist, not PEP assistance (staff only), for our children to speak to when problems occur. 5. A committee that works on the development of age appropriate, outside learning programs brought into our school system. These districtwide (level based) programs should not take away from a child's academic learning time in school. Program offerings should increase in expectation level from basic exposure in the younger grades to developmental mastery in the High School. Redundancy of course offerings must be eliminated. 6. An on-site transition coordinator who provides every special ed parent with a checklist or a growth binder that travels with each student from building to building. A better means of defining transitions and/or post-secondary education options prior to graduation is necessary! 7. A 3rd (academic) special ed teacher at the HS level who deals mainly with the 4 core subjects - math, language arts, science and social studies.

3/5/2020 4:48 PM

Respect input of parents. Provide services outside of self-contained classrooms and not push students into a model that fits self-contained rooms where learning is not modified to each child’s potential. The practice is career center box or self-contained classroom. Stop abusing the use of alternative testing to inflate district scores and do your job and provide any meaningful education to these students.

3/5/2020 1:01 PM

Information on future planning regarding work opportunities.

3/5/2020 12:32 PM

74

Collaboration at IEP meetings where a parent doesn’t feel rushed (middle school), transition planning to high school that starts before the IEP meeting. Long term view in planning for older students, not just yearly goals in order to set ambitious goals. Mindset of inclusion for all children, no special programs in a single school (elementary or preschool) that segregates children.

3/5/2020 7:14 AM

when a child enters a special education program there needs to be an individual who reviews ALL of the options available for the child. A child needs to be pushed to their greatest potential not left in a special needs program out of convenience. As the child goes through each grade that individual needs to explain all of the options in classes while in high school and options after 12th grade. I feel like my child is not in a structured environment of learning. I feel like they are taught the same thing year after year. There is no growth or progression in their learning.

3/4/2020 1:18 PM

More communication between parent and teachers, not always parent driven.

3/4/2020 7:51 AM

Transition planning starting far earlier, invitation for CCBDDD rep to attend all IEP meetings, more structure/less downtime in the classroom; more focus on pre-vocational skills, job training, life after high school (don't exclusively rely on CVCC); identify teacher strengths and credentials for building placement; more creativity and thinking out of the box; not doing the bare minimum as required in IEP but going over and beyond the job; too many buildings-too many different SPED teachers.

3/3/2020 12:45 PM

Communication is extremely poor between staff and parents- this includes the director of special services. Classroom management of behavior needs to be better supported by administration. Teachers need resources and support to properly write IEPs, collect data and manage goals appropriately. Proper classroom placement is also an issue. Seems like the district’s mentality is lack of funding and not based on what a child needs to be successful- this needs to change!

3/2/2020 8:36 PM

75

High caliber special ed teachers in all grade levels. And for those who aren’t and who principals and administrators know are lacking in skills because they hear the same complaints about these teachers from students and parents each year, there needs to be improvement plans in place for these teachers or they need to be let go.

3/2/2020 6:29 PM

Honestly? Get a whole new administration to actually provide what is needed for their special needs students.

3/2/2020 12:01 PM

They should put more effort to place students with same or close learning challenge Together. They should not put a child with Down syndrome with someone has mild degree of learning challenge

3/1/2020 9:19 PM

Teachers with current, fresh, challenging, lesson plans. Many new school years at BBHS is 10 steps back one forward. Especially 4th grade through 8th grade! One year a teacher will have spelling tests each week with challenging words and much success in studying and reading. The following year, another teacher has the kids sitting in a group for reading. Each child adding one word to have the group form a sentence. This takes 30 minutes with many outbursts and the kids are learning nothing. It’s all very frustrating. Some of the teachers are teaching in small groups, some teachers in larger groups. This all depends on how many kids with what challenges are coming in and out of a grade. Some are challenging the kids, some are not. So each year or years, if they have the same teacher, are stagnant. We are not meeting the needs of the individual child because we have so many different abilities to address with one teacher. We need more teachers and appropriate groupings. Following IEP from school to school. Each year is a new way to teach reading a new way to learn math etc. Classrooms that enliven one’s attitude and create a good learning environment. Inclusion, inclusion, inclusion. More class offerings (inclusion classes) and programs that allow the students to be a part of the fabric of the school. A special needs link on the school web page. Continued vocational education at the HS not just at the CVCC. More classrooms. Peer interaction. Programs that put the typical kids with the special needs kids. A mentor program throughout the school year. We had horseback riding offered in elementary, why did that stop? Consistent parent/ teacher communication.

3/1/2020 9:49 AM

76

I would like my son to feel like he is good enough for this system. He met with a tutor for academic Geometry. His tutor teaches academic Geometry at Hoban in Akron. He has taught all HS math classes. He DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO MY SON'S GEOMETRY. He had to look it up. He picked it up quickly and was able to help my son but seriously? He said they don't teach that at Hoban. BBHCSD looks at the lower 20% of students that are not special ed (CP, Down's etc) as students that make them look bad. If you’re not that overachiever then they don't have any time, understanding, or comprehension of your educational needs. They don't want to deal with you and they frankly view you as lazy, difficult, and a waste of their time.

2/29/2020 4:52 PM

Education. Stop teaching as a group. Each child skills are different. start with the basics and build from there. Show growth Modify properly for each child.

2/29/2020 3:50 PM

I would like the children to have a more private class not, multiple small classes in one room. I feel students with learning disabilities need to have less distractions to be successful.

2/29/2020 2:00 PM

It seems most students are getting the same math instruction regardless of their math level in primary grades.

2/29/2020 8:32 AM

Better overall program, more qualified aides, better plan for behaviors both positive and negative. Emotional support for kids with special needs. More special Ed teachers. Compassion and empathy for children & families. More options for special needs children to join activities, sports, Mentors.

2/28/2020 10:32 PM

True inclusion and coteaching. Scheduling allowing for support with intervention specialist more regularly. Training on coteaching and true inclusion.

2/28/2020 9:04 PM

77

Better follow up from the administrators. The teachers generally try to do their best but the administrators never follow through. Communication is key and that is lacking. If you say you are doing to do something you need to do it and follow up. It might not seem important to them, but it is so important to us. I would generalize the administrators at all levels as not caring and not reliable. Special education is not a priority at all to BBHSD.

2/28/2020 8:44 PM

Smaller class size; Wilson program full 12 books; classroom aids; more individualized attention.

2/28/2020 8:43 PM

More consistent resources/practices from one grade level/building to the next.

2/28/2020 8:29 PM

Better inclusion within general education setting

2/28/2020 7:21 PM

I felt like my observations at home were not necessarily taken into account at the elementary school. At our meetings with the special education staff they would say well we’re not observing this so we feel like he’s doing OK. I felt like they were preparing me from kindergarten on to take him off his IEP because they kept telling me how wonderful he was doing and how focused he was when just a year before in preschool he had so many things we needed to work on. They took him off his IEP at the end of his first grade year and I was very unhappy about this because I still saw him struggling with focus. And this year he did OK at the beginning of the year but now he’s once again struggling to stay focused and now he has no IEP. It’s very frustrating when you hear from other parents that this is something that the school does they push Kids to be off their IEP before going into 2nd grade. This is exactly what happened to my son. And I know I’m not the only parent who’s dealing with the school cutting services for our children when we feel that they are definitely still needed.

2/28/2020 6:10 PM

Related services; IEP implementation; IEP compliance with state mandates; Data driven instruction; communication

2/28/2020 5:01 PM

78

More communication. My child also has private speech and we get updates on what they are working on. The school only gives updates once a quarter.

2/28/2020 4:49 PM

I would like to see a better understanding of the whole child. My son has received services from outside organizations. In these cases, the professionals working with him often understand him, his strengths and weaknesses appropriately, within in the first hour of the first meeting. In school meetings, I am often told what cannot be done due to my son’s disability, rather than what can be accomplished. In school meetings, I have to ask is there anything positive that my son does during his time at school. The educators do not find nor promote any positives occurring. It seems like there is such a focus placed on the disability, that educating the child seems quite secondary. Suggestions between home and school often become misconstrued or are ignored completely. I am becoming greatly concerned about his self-esteem. He is very aware of how people perceive him. I informed the team before he began Middle school that if he was treated as a disabled child, he would react accordingly to that level of expectation for him. The team has decreased their expectations and he has made little to no educational growth associated with the school team.

2/28/2020 4:47 PM

79

80

Appendix G

Summary of Brecksville-Broadview Heights Due Process Issues

A review of available information was conducted relating to settlement agreements, due process issues and the fiscal effect of BBH students with disabilities attending other schools under state funding that reduces foundation funds to BBH.

Currently active settlements were reviewed along with a short-term lookback and a summary of Jon Peterson and autism Ohio scholarships as they fiscally affect the district. We found:

1. BBH is commended for avoiding multi-year agreements and for working to hold down costs in this area.

2. Looking for common factors that caused due process claims resulting in settlements, we found an array of parent representatives/attorneys and attending schools and no other issues of commonality except one.

3. The cause of the claims for each of the currently active settlements can be summarized to be that BBH does not have an adequate program for the student’s specific disability and subsequent to that claim, in each case, BBH could not demonstrate to the contrary. That is, although BBH likely has adequate programs for most of these students, it could not produce data, student progress, program success rates, and other information to defend itself against the claims of inadequacy. This is a systemic issue with responsibility on both administrators and teachers/aides.

4. Financial settlements ranged from $20,000 to $90,000, totaling just under $300,000 annually.

5. Autism and Jon Peterson scholarships awarded by the Ohio Department of Education, which allow parents to have their SWD students to attend a private school with some public funds, is being utilized by 40 students, those funds taken from BBH’s state funding allocation as the school of residence. Typically, these scholarships amount to only part of a family’s cost of the private school tuition and thus is generally sought by families that can afford the remainder of the cost. The scholarships range from $10,000 to $27,000, with the resulting total of almost $800,000 of BBH state funding that goes to private schools.

6. Total support of BBH SWD students in private settings via settlements or state scholarships costs the district over $1M annually.

81

We recognize that to some degree these charges cannot be avoided. And the following chart demonstrates this issue, for many reasons, is even larger in many BBH-comparable districts.

District
	% Private (Grades 1-8)
	% Private (Grades 9-12)
	
Aurora
	4.0
	2.3
	
	Brecksville-Broadview Hts
			11.0
			7.6
		
Hudson
	18.6
	22.7
	
Nordonia
	20.1
	24.5
	
North Royalton
	31.4
	15.4
	
Twinsburg
	9.0
	10.9

Average School %
	
15.7
	
13.9

Given the above findings and information we recommend:

1. Training for administrators (central office and building level), teachers and aides in:
a. developing proper IEPs that are designed and implemented to address the learning needs of each individual student with a disability,
b. recording data (running records, data sheets, behavior charting, for example) that demonstrates each student’s progress or lack of progress on IEP-identified learning goals,
c. communicating effectively with students and parents in a manner that encourages sincere and effective dialogue between all parties of interest,
d. identifying and communicating program successes and needs,
e. when in fact true, promoting BBH as a quality placement for students with disabilities.

2. Bringing students back into the District, where appropriate, should be pursued. First, BBH needs to ensure quality program that satisfies the learning needs of students any place on the spectrum of instructional needs. Second, we know that Monarch School, Cleveland Clinic School for Autism, Lawrence School and others do significant marketing of their fine product. BBH should have and promote quality special education programming in the same way it has and promotes its quality general education and sports opportunities for students.

3. We recognize there are a small number of students in need of services that are low-incidence to BBH. We also recognize there are likely some severely disabled students whose specialized services are better available in area facilities that specialize in those severe disabilities. And parents have an option to use private schools. But the quality reputation of BBH should extend to its special education programming as well. It is that fact and reputation that could reduce the number of SWDs leaving their in-district FAPE and LRE. The result of bringing students back to BBH should be better IEP-goal success for those students and a reduction in the loss of state funding that currently occurs.

82

Appendix H
Best SPED Practice Overview Review

Given that a few comments during both our sessions with staff and our meeting with parents demonstrated some confusion about a few settled IDEA, FAPE, and full access issues, we felt it appropriate to put together the following information for you as reference:

1. The IEP is the primary document which provides meaningful participation to a disabled student’s family. The District needs to make staff aware the IEP is a fluid document and capable of change as needed by student at ANY time during the school year. Both school and parent should request an IEP meeting if they contend the IEP needs to be changed in any manner. The IEP is the parent’s first line of information about their student. Parent education is the major component of meaningful participation and needs to be provided by the District.

2. RTI/MTSS is only one step to being eligible for services under IDEA. A regular ETR can be conducted before RTI is done. Preference is to start with the RTI so that students are not rushed to eligibility, but there are circumstances where an ETR must be done first. Adherence to evaluation deadlines are critical and the RTI process cannot be used to delay eligibility. There must be training for School Psychologists, special education and regular education teachers on how these separate processes can be integrated as required by IDEA.

3. Data on the goals and objectives is the keystone of evidence should there be a Due Process hearing. Data must be done contemporaneously and grades on classroom tests do not necessarily line up to data on goals and objectives. There should be provisions for both anecdotal and objective data to be taken in the IEP.

4. Consistent language across buildings should be used for goals and objectives. Goals must be measurable.

5. Some paraprofessional aides expressed that they were not privy to IEPs. Anyone working with students with disabilities needs to read and utilize the information contained in the IEP.

6. Mental health needs of students are a component of behavior and are addressed on the IEP. At times this may necessitate the use of behavior plans to be used at school and at home. This may require consultation with private family therapists.

7. An IEP student’s success should be measured to that student’s IEP goals more than a letter grade in a mainstreamed class. If not already the case, Brecksville-Broadview Heights may want to consider having each student’s case manager/interventionist be the teacher of record for the SWD in an inclusionary classroom.

83