District: Progress made in special ed
Turnover still presents challenges 1 year after audit

By COURTNEY LAMDIN | Staff Writer
courtney@miltonindependent.com

Mid-May marked one year since the independent audit report of Milton School District’s special education office was released, and administrators say progress has been made, but there are still steps to go.

The report was commissioned by the School Board in January 2010 after numerous meetings drew crowds of dissatisfied parents, calling for a review of the Student Services department and its leadership; some called for superintendent Marty Waldron and Student Services director Tim Dunn to resign.

Yet the audit, partly based on interviews with 40 parents, reported that the school’s special ed department was based on “best practices” in the field and could be used as a model in other districts.

Though Dunn called many of the public airings of discontent “isolated concerns,” the audit did acknowledge parents’ complaints and suggested a survey be issued and that information about special education be more readily available; these steps have been implemented, Waldron and Dunn said.

The district distributed a survey to all parents of the schools’ 278 special education students last week, Waldron said. The 25-question survey, based on one used in Arizona, asks parents if the school gives them choice in their child’s services, if they’re asked how well those services meet their child’s needs, if reports are understandable, among others, and gives room for additional comments.

“We wanted it to really capture how has this year gone and wanting to see any discrepancy between that survey and the exit tickets that we’re getting,” Dunn said.

Exit tickets, another attempt at getting parent feedback, are mailed to parents after their child’s special ed meetings and try to gauge the parent-friendliness of the process, Dunn said. The district has a 25 percent response rate, which isn’t as high as Dunn would like, he said.

“But I think if folks have concerns, they’re very up front about expressing those either at meetings or in a survey,” he added.

Board chairman Doug Stout has seen numerous exit tickets, and the feedback is “largely favorable,” he said.

“I am not so naive as to believe that everyone is happy – it never works that way – but I am personally not hearing much community feedback on issues with Student Services,” Stout wrote in an emailed response.

Information about special education was made available on a Student Services website, created in response to the audit.

The site, which features links to special ed laws and staff bios, has been built up slowly since Dunn and assistant director Meagan Roy presented it to the School Board last September. The their web developer moved out of state, Dunn said.

“That’s something that isn’t necessarily my forte,” Dunn said, “but I do think that it’s come in very handy … to have parents be able to access forms or regulations and provide feedback.”

Dunn and Waldron seemed more concerned with administrative turnover, which was mentioned in the audit as disruptive and stressful to staff. In the last 10 years, nearly 30 administrators have left or changed positions in the district.

“What you lose when people turn over is knowledge of kids,” Waldron said. “There are disconnects that come into that around communication, clarity of understanding.”

The district is currently hiring new principals to fill spots vacated by current elementary and middle school principals, Sandra Jump and Laurie Hodgdon, respectively. Assistant principal Kathleen Kilbourne was not offered a contract to return next school year.

That Roy’s position was eliminated in the last budget creates concern that Dunn alone won’t be able to attend certain special ed meetings as required by law – a task that currently has Dunn and Roy “triple booked,” he said.

Waldron said, “Anything that defaults to one person in a large system can have its own set of problems.”

Dunn is concerned that it’s June and “critical positions” haven’t been filled; he said the uncertainty could trickle down from staff to students.

Asked if Student Services’ progress is on target one year out, Waldron said he’s pleased but more can be done. He prefers moving to a “co-teaching” model where special education students are taught both by the classroom teacher and a special educator.

Waldron brought a proposal to the School Board this month to swap 15 paraprofessionals for five special educators, who have more training. The Board rejected the proposal, cutting only three paras in favor of one behavior specialist position.

“That will come another day,” Waldron said.

For now, Waldron said the district should focus on melding special and regular education.

“That is not one year’s worth of work but several years’ worth of work to help that system change,” he said.

Stout agreed that many of the issues cited in the Student Services audit – administrative turnover, communication and managing complaints – are beyond the scope of that department. He said he’s keeping track of the audit progress and hopes to include it on an agenda before Waldron’s departure July 1.