Program Review of Special Education Programs
Department of Special Education Hull Public Schools Hull, Massachusetts Conducted: October 2011 Submitted by: Walker Partnerships A Division of Walker Needham, Massachusetts 02492
2 Table of Contents: I. Introduction A. Purpose B. Reviewer II. Methodology III. Commendations
IV. Factors Affecting Programming
V. Findings
VI. Recommendations
3 I. Introduction
The Director of Student Services, Judy Kuehn, requested that Walker Partnerships conduct a review of the special education programs in the Hull Public Schools. The overall focus of this review is to gain a greater understanding of the current status of special education programs and services within the district, the strengths of the existing programming, and what issues need to be addressed to enhance current programming. The administration wants to procure recommendations that will assist in addressing future program needs, the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes and activities, and the instructional supports that are required to ensure greater access to the general curriculum for students with special needs.
A. Purpose
The purpose of an independent review of a specific program and service is to provide a school system with an objective report that identifies areas of strengths, needs and
recommendations. An independent review allows for the system to be examined from the perspective that looks at what is working well in the system, but also speaks to areas that need to be strengthened. This review is focused on the specific domain of programming and services that serve students with special needs.
The review process is designed, through a multi-step approach, to assist the school system’s leadership team and the school-based special education personnel in having a guided and focused discussion that will enable effective short and long range planning to occur while recognizing and addressing issues such as:
o Determining the effectiveness and utilization of current special education personnel and their roles and responsibilities with respect to serving students in Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs)
o Identifying staffing and resources that reflect student needs
o Determining the effectiveness of current program and service interventions o Creating a long-range plan that addresses the agreed upon needs of the student
population
o Establishing a comprehensive approach to program and service development that is linked to the budget planning process
This review process brings forth information that will enable the system’s administration and school-based special and regular education personnel to develop an action plan(s) that will lead to more effective approaches for serving the students of Hull Public Schools.
4 It is important to recognize that, in order for the information contained in this report to be beneficial to the school system and special education services, the stakeholders must come together to discuss the Findings and the Recommendations. Through a deliberative process, the administration and the school-based special education and regular education personnel can develop short and long range action plan(s) that will address the agreed- upon issues.
B.
ReviewerMr. James Shillinglaw, Southeast Region Associate Manager for Walker Partnerships, has thirty-four years of public school experience. He has been a teacher and building coordinator. He was an Administrator of Special Education and Director of Pupil Personnel Services for twenty-nine years for the Provincetown Public Schools, Provincetown/Truro Public Schools, the Barnstable Public Schools and the Hanover Public Schools. Mr. Shillinglaw has been an Adjunct Professor for Lesley University and Framingham State College as well as a presenter at numerous conferences. He was also the president and a member of the executive board of the National Association of Pupil Service Administrators for six years.
5 II. Methodology
This program evaluation was conducted based on a three-pronged approach. 1. A review of written documentation pertaining to this review:
o Data and statistics provided by the Special Education Department o District procedures and program information pertaining to the special
education process
o Review of information related to the special education budget
o District Professional Development Handbook for the 2011-2012 school year
o Job descriptions related to the student services department
2. Group formatted interviews and discussions were conducted in each of the three schools in the district of the following positions:
o Superintendent of Schools o Director of Special Education o Business Manager
o Three building principals o Six special education teachers o Seven general education teachers o Four Team-Based Learning Teachers o Two adjustment counselors
o One school psychologist
3. The observations of programs and classrooms included: o Ten general education classrooms
o Four Team-Based Learning programs o One Pre-Kindergarten program
The interviews and discussions, conducted with twenty-five individuals in three groups, were one hour in length at each building. Emphasis was placed on the focus of the service and program under review. Questions and discussion focused on the following:
o What are their roles and responsibilities to the program being reviewed? o What are their main concerns?
o What is working well?
o What strengths of the program can they identify? o What trends are they experiencing in the program? o What changes do they believe need to occur?
o What topics of professional development need to be addressed? o What practices need to be in place to enhance the program?
6 These questions varied somewhat, depending on the specific role of the
individuals who were interviewed. Discussion expanded beyond these specific questions based on their experience within their respective role, their experience in the field of education, the length of time that they have been in their current position, and any other factors that emerged from the interview process.
7 III. Commendations
This section of the report is for the purpose of recognizing the efforts put forth by the system and the administration in their plan to meet the needs of the students. Special Education is a complex mandate for public schools to meet. There are competing interests that continue to place a significant pressure and financial burden on the school system. Hull Public Schools has recognized its responsibility to meet the needs of their students.
Specific Commendations:
o The Director of Student Services for commissioning this review in order to gain insight into program/service enhancements and improvements for the district’s special education programs.
o The very high level of dedication and commitment of school-based personnel to fulfill the requirements of special education and students’ IEPs.
o The Director of Student Services for her effort to consistently meet with staff to communicate program expectations, and for her accessibility to the district’s administrators.
o The Director of Student Services attempts to attempts to attend as many IEP meetings as possible. There is always an administrator who attends initial and reevaluation IEP meetings.
o The outreach to the community in an effort to develop a Special Education Parent Advisory Council.
o The Director of Student Services, in collaboration with other south shore special education administrators, for their outreach to local physicians and hospitals in an effort to inform and educate outside evaluators about the special education
process.
o The district’s commitment to develop and implement a system-wide co-teaching model to ensure that special needs students can successfully access the general education curriculum.
o The administration’s commitment to provide professional development and consultation to general and special education staff.
o The efforts of the district’s school adjustment counselors to develop protocol and consistency for the Section 504 process.
o The fact that a majority of the special education staff have been trained in the Wilson Reading Program.
8 o The efforts to expand access to technology such as iPads, Kurzweil, and Alpha
Smarts.
o The development of the Team Based Learning (TBL) programs for increasing the district’s capacity to service students within the district.
o The information, related to the district’s special education programs that is available on the website.
o The commitment of the building principals in support of special education initiatives.
o The Superintendent of Schools and the Director of Student Services for
developing an excellent working relationship that has created many improvements in the district’s special education program.
o The high school adjustment counselor for providing a great deal of assistance to community families by referring them to community agencies.
o The district has made commendable efforts to develop interventions at the middle school and the high school to assist students (general education) with the
development of study and organizational skills. They have done this through creative utilization of a general education staff that had time in their schedule. This has been useful as the district continues to develop the RtI model. The high school offered a “Strategies for Learning” course as part of their program of studies.
o The district’s efforts to provide classrooms for seven south shore collaborative programs (four at the elementary school, two at the middle school and one at the high school); thereby, providing the district with several significant benefits:
Tuition credits are given for Hull students attending collaborative programs.
Due to the relative geographic isolation of Hull, the district would incur extraordinary transportation costs if students attended programs in other south shore towns.
Placement in these collaborative programs allows students to stay in their community, and it promotes an easier transition into district programs when the students are ready for a less restrictive environment.
9 o The special education program received nine commendable areas on their last
Coordinated Program Review conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. All forty-seven compliance factors were fully implemented. The following is a synopsis of the department’s review. A review of documents, student records, and staff interviews indicate that the district individualizes every student’s educational program and places students in the least restrictive environment. The district does not remove an eligible child from the general education classroom, solely because of needed modifications in the curriculum; rather the district makes every attempt to keep all children in the least restrictive environment. In addition, all special education students are scheduled to be in general education classrooms for homeroom and morning activities.
The district also has an exemplary continuum of services. Collaborative classes are located in the public school buildings, and principals ensure that students in the
collaborative programs are included and integrated into general education classes, at all levels, and are included in the life and activities of the school. A review of
documentation, interviews, and parent surveys indicate that the district has programs at every level (TIDES and LEAF) that ensure that students have academic support or replacement instruction. Students may access these programs for a period, once a day, or may be in the class for the entire day, if required. Principals ensure that students are back in general education classrooms as soon as possible. This inclusive model has flexibility and provides for a wide continuum of services.
The district consistently uses multiple attempts to obtain informed parental consent. The district sends out three notices requesting parent signatures on IEPs, and makes multiple phone calls prior to sending the IEPs to the Bureau of Special Education Appeals. The district, also, has a licensed social worker who acts as a home-to-school liaison by going to individual homes to procure needed signatures on documents.
The district conducts extensive assessments, using supporting classroom data and student observations, to assess students with social, emotional, and behavioral needs.
Functional behavioral assessments are routinely conducted. The district has a working relationship with outside consultants to assess students whose behaviors and emotional issues may be affected by mental health issues.
Routinely, the district sends the evaluation reports to the parents two days in advance of the Team discussion to ensure that parents have an opportunity to prepare for the meetings.
The district goes to extensive measures to ensure that students have access to before-school and after-before-school extracurricular activities. The district provides after-before-school transportation and paraprofessional support for students, if needed, to ensure their participation.
10 IV. Factors Affecting Programming and Services
There are numerous factors that impact on the district’s ability to deliver instructional and related services to students within the Hull Public School District. The most pressing factors are the number of students (census) with special needs, balancing the level of needs, and the impact of providing required services.
Today, school personnel are facing many challenges in their efforts to serve diverse families and children with disabilities. Inadequate human and fiscal capacity, and attitudinal and cultural barriers are among the many hurdles that must be surmounted for the successful provision of related services.
(1) As of 1997, more than a fifth of the children in America lived in families with cash flow incomes far below the poverty level.
(2) There have been a significant amount of current demographic studies that have found a growing relationship between poverty and the risk for a disability. (3) There has been a significant increase in the rate of childhood disability over the
past fourteen years.
(4) The impact of home, school, and family factors (e.g. Income, parent education, language background, and cultural diversity) are found in many educational systems across the country.
All of these factors contribute to teacher qualifications, student achievement, and class size. It is becoming increasingly evident that poverty has a compounding impact on the educational achievement of all children, including those with disabilities. Poverty is not a secondary topic in the field of special education, service delivery, and disability policy; however, it is a challenge for educational systems to obtain results of productivity, accountability, independence, equal opportunity for all, and diversity. Additionally, inclusion is complicated by a variety of complex factors associated with poverty. Special Education: Examining the impact of poverty on the quality of life of families of children with disabilities. Enwafa, Regina L; Enwefa, Stephen C; Jennings, Robert 2006
Free and Reduced Lunch for Hull Public Schools
School Free Reduced Percentage
Jacobs Elementary 29% 6% 35%
Memorial MS 33% 7% 40%
Hull HS 30% 7% 37%
The severe economic crisis that the state and country have experienced during the past three years has had a significant impact on school budgets because of the decrease in state and local revenues. When school districts have to make budget cuts, the most
11 vulnerable area is personnel. This area represents between 80-85% of the district’s overall budget. When personnel are eliminated, there is a direct impact on the programs and services offered to students. This can often lead to “pitting” general education against special education as both programs compete for resources. It becomes even more complicated when districts are obligated to maintain the services dictated under federal and state special education mandates. Eliminating or decreasing special education staff and programs can create other significant financial issues for the district to consider. This is especially evident with the district’s high risk populations. When students lack the appropriate supports, they will not, in all likelihood, continue to make “effective progress.” With high risk populations, this can often lead to costly out-of-district programs. The average annual cost of a day program is $60,000. Residential programs can average from $100,000-$150,000. The challenge of balancing the needs of all the students in a school district, and the financial consequences of servicing the unique needs of a small minority of students is a very difficult one.
There have been several significant changes in both state and federal legislation that has greatly impacted special education. In the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Congress was very disappointed, not only in the number of special needs students who were excluded from general education classrooms, but also with the limited involvement of these students in state and local assessments. The reauthorization ensured that special needs students would not be excluded from state and local assessments, and school districts were encouraged provide services in the least restrictive environment (the general education classroom).
In1993, Massachusetts passed the School Reform Act that led to the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System better known as MCAS. This assessment established high standards for all students to meet in order to receive a high school diploma.
In 2001, Congress passed the landmark legislation, “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). The stated goal of NCLB was “…to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind.” All of these acts have focused attention on assisting students with increasingly diverse learning needs to achieve high academic performance in general education.
These changes have greatly impacted how special education services are delivered to students. Prior to these changes, the service delivery relied on pulling students out of the general education classrooms to provide instruction that often did not relate to accessing the curriculum. Students lost important instruction in the classroom, and in many cases, left them at a significant disadvantage to be successful in participating in state and local assessments.
The development of effective co-teaching models has allowed special education students to have more access to the general education curriculum. Co-teaching is effective for students with a variety of instructional needs. The collaboration of the general and
12 special education teacher creates a classroom environment that differentiates instruction, makes essential accommodations, and allows all students to maximize their potential. V. Findings
Through the review process, it was apparent that the school district’s administration is aware of the needs of the district as a whole, and of the particular needs within individual buildings. Although considerable effort has been put forth to develop and implement quality programming for students with disabilities, there are a number of issues that have been identified and will need to be addressed over a reasonable period of time. The following findings are provided to assist the system with the work that needs to be completed. These findings are presented in no particular order of priority.
Specific Findings:
o The primary approach that was observed is the Supportive Co-Teaching Approach. In this approach, one teacher is assigned the primary responsibility for designing and delivering a lesson and the other member(s) of the team provides support. In most cases, the special education teacher was utilized more as a paraprofessional than as a co-teacher. The special education teacher ensured that students remained on task, worked one-to-one, provided behavior management, and occasionally reframed questions to better explain a concept.
o General education teachers are having a difficult time adjusting to sharing the responsibility of co-teaching, “sharing the chalk”. They are used to having full command of their subject area.
o The district has restructured and renamed their continuum of special education to Team Based Learning (TBL) programs. They have developed specific entrance and exit criteria that are consistent from preschool through the high school level. The range of disabilities varied based on the needs of the students.
o At the elementary level, a majority of the TBL students were integrated, with support, for a majority of the day. At the middle school, students received
individualized instruction in the TBL room for ELA, math, and academic support. They were integrated, with support, for science, social studies, and unified arts. The high school program only had two students at this point. Both students were integrated into academic subjects with the special education teacher who modified the curriculum.
o Staff members feel that the early identification of students in the preschool TBL programs has greatly benefitted students who will require fewer services as they transition through the district.
13 o Given the challenges of meeting the needs of students and balancing caseloads the
district attempts to limit the number of students staff are liaison for throughout the district.
o School psychologists, throughout the district, were responsible for the cognitive assessment of the initial evaluation, the reevaluation, and for chairing these meetings. They also coordinate the development of the evaluation.The special education liaison conducted the achievement assessment for the initial evaluation and the reevaluation, chaired the annual review, and ensured the completion of all required forms and timelines.
o When special education teachers provided academic support (pull-out services), they primarily focused on organization, developing learning strategies, subject oriented support focusing on IEP goals, and assistance with classroom
assignments. At the elementary and middle schools they provide interventions such as Ed Mark, Wilson Reading as well as others.
o IEP meetings across the district havean established agenda and a structured
process to conduct an efficient meeting. Review meetings were usually 45 minutes and reevaluations were 1.5 hours.
o The district is at the beginning stages of developing a Response to Intervention process primarily at the elementary and middle schools. The Student Assistance Team (SAT) develops a plan that can include classroom modifications, data collection, and a schedule to review information. Due to significant budget cuts, many potential general education interventions have been eliminated.
o The district contracts with a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) to consult with the SAT to develop tier 1 interventions. The consultant also conducts
functional behavior assessments and develops behavior intervention plans. o The role of the school adjustment counselor is well-defined. The counselor is
responsible for overseeing the 504 process, running social skills groups,
conducting the anti-bullying curriculum in the classroom, and functioning as the homeless liaison. Additionally, outreach to high risk students and their families is a responsibility for the counselor.
o Throughout the district, the teaching staff (general and special education) and the district administration feel that the special education process has greatly improved
14 as it relates to the eligibility process, regulatory compliance issues, and other special education procedures.
o At the high school, students attend the Academic Support program as part of their daily schedule. It is usually every other day. They receive a grade, but the grade from this class does not factor into their GPA.
o General education teachers at the high school are successful in providing appropriate accommodations as a function of ‘good teaching’. Many of the accommodations are part of the district’s curriculum accommodation plan.
o Due to housing availability and a number of foster families in the town, there is the potential for students to move into the town who were previously placed in out-of-district programs. This can create significant funding issues. The business manager, being very aware of this, is diligent in utilizing funding options such as the circuit breaker and tuition credits.
o The district’s special education population is below the state average. The district average is 15.6% while the state average is 17%.
o The district makes every effort to place students in the least restrictive environment.
Indicator 5 - School Age Educational Environment (Ages 6 - 21) for
Students with IEPs (2009-10)
For 2009-10, the state target for the % of Students with IEPs served in Full Inclusion is 56.8%; the target for % of Students with IEPs served in Substantially Separate placements is 14.7%; and the target for % of Students with IEPs served in Separate Schools, Residential Facilities, or Homebound/Hospital placements is 5.9%.
For more information on state performance in this area, please see the
Massachusetts State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report.
Enroll ment District Rate State Rate State Target
Enrolled Students with IEPs 170 -- -- --
Full Inclusion (inside the general education classroom 80% or
15 Partial Inclusion (outside of general education classroom
21%-60%) 17 10.0 % 20.8 % --
Substantially Separate (inside the general education
classroom less than 40% of the day) 17 10.0 % 15.4 % 14.7%
Separate Schools, Residential Facilities, or
Homebound/Hospital Placements 9 5.3 % 6.7 % 5.9%
o Monthly consultations are available with a doctorate level psychologist for district-wide clinical staff, counselors, and special education staff.
o The preschool program has a parent training program to promote the generalization of skills from school to home.
o The district is in the process of developing a Curriculum Renewal Plan for Pre-Kindergarten through grade twelve.
o The district has developed a comprehensive professional development plan that will promote more effective instruction for diverse learners within the general education classroom. The course offerings include the following:
Differentiated Instruction (offered twice) Response to Intervention
Formative Assessment
SPED Transition Focus Group
Neuropsychological Training and Consultation
Supporting Struggling Readers: Collaboration between Reading and Special Education Teachers
Reading and the Special Education Teachers Project-Based Learning
o The district has developed comprehensive job descriptions for each position in the Student Services Department.
o The Director of Student Services has updated the Student Services Procedures and Regulations Manual. She has developed several comprehensive forms that ensure compliance with all regulations.
o The roster of students placed out-of-district is closely monitored between the Director of Student Services and the part time out-of-district coordinator. There are ongoing conversations concerning student progress, and a comprehensive planning process for students returning to district programs is discussed.
16 VI. Recommendations
The following recommendations are a direct outcome of the review process that was recently completed of the Hull Public Schools. The findings listed in the previous section are the foundation for the following recommendations. Each recommendation is
followed by an explanation that is intended to further expand on the rationale for the recommendation. These recommendations are intended to provide insight and direction for the administration, and school personnel to make decisions regarding the direction they determine to follow with respect to the existing programs and services. These recommendations should be viewed as a point of departure for involved personnel to engage in discussions that will lead to the development of programs and services that truly meet the needs of the student population.
There will be a need for the stakeholders to come together and develop an action plan that is comprised of short- and long-term steps. Budget implications, as well as structural and organizational issues, need to be well understood so that appropriate program
development can be instituted. Through an inclusive process of discussion, a plan will emerge that is comprehensive, meaningful, and purposeful.
1. Professional development activities need to be an ongoing activity for the teachers of the co-teaching model.
Explanation:
o It is very apparent that the district is strongly committed to changing the current structure of instruction and moving towards a co-teaching model. All of the administrative personnel support this, and their comprehensive professional development plan provides many excellent opportunities to begin the transition process. This change will be challenging and will require time and perseverance to develop and implement.
o The Director of Student Services, the school administration, and the teachers of the co-teaching model need to plan a professional development program that is uniform, consistent, and ongoing.
o The model of training needs to have options for the various staff that is based on their exposure and experience with the model.
o The regular education teachers of the co-teaching model must have a foundation of knowledge and information regarding specialized instruction in the same way that special education teachers do. This will become an important factor as the school integrates special education students into higher level courses.
17 o To effectively participate in the co-teaching model, the special education teachers
must have a foundation of knowledge regarding the content of the subject as it relates to the curriculum frameworks. They will not be able to incorporate effective learning strategies if they do not have a clear understanding of the content being taught.
o The content of the training program needs to cover the range of issues that the teachers identify as well as some standard topics that are relevant to the shared teaching experience. Each teacher needs to know what their co-teacher knows, what they are comfortable doing, and how they plan to conduct their assignment. o Training should focus on developing a continuum of co-teaching models.
Currently, the prevalent model is “supportive co-teaching.” This is when one teacher takes the lead instructional role and the other(s) rotates among the students to provide support. In most observations, the lead instructor was the general education teacher. As co-teaching evolves, the model should move towards “complementary co-teaching.” This occurs when co-teachers do something to enhance the instruction provided by the other teacher(s), and ultimately a “team-teaching” approach evolves when both teachers plan, teach, assess, and assume responsibility for all of the students in the classroom.
o In order to gain greater insight into sharing the teaching responsibilities, coaching should be available for the team so that their teamwork skills can be critiqued. 2. Common planning time for teachers of the co-teaching model must be in place and conducted on a scheduled basis.
Explanation:
o As the district moves forward with the implementation of co-teaching effort will be made to address the issue of common planning time.
o Co-teaching teams should be determined prior to the end of the school year. Providing time over the summer would give teams an excellent opportunity to begin the planning process for the coming year. Each team of teachers should be aware of the special education students that will be in their classroom so that they have an opportunity to understand the students’ learning profiles and differentiate the curriculum to accommodate their learning needs.
o To assist teachers in the planning process, they should be encouraged to use The Co-Teaching Lesson Plan Book. Dr. Lisa Dieker, nationally known for her work in developing effective co-teaching models, is the author of this book. The benefits of the book include: clarified roles of both teachers, ownership of planning, and improved documentation of the development and usage of specific accommodations for reporting IEP progress.
18 o 3. In order to ensure that the co-teaching model is effective, close
consideration should be given to the individual skills and effectiveness of the special education staff.
Explanation:
o Special education teachers should be selected to co-teach based on their knowledge of curriculum and content area. Consideration should be given to designating special education teachers who are strong in instructing learning strategies, organizing, and remediating in the academic support centers. Special education teachers who have good knowledge of the curriculum should be utilized as the co-teachers.
o Successful co-teaching models will take time to evolve and develop as teachers begin to feel more comfortable with the concept and have an opportunity to spend planning time together. In order to develop continuity, it would be helpful for teachers to work together for several years. This will potentially advance co-teaching models from a “supportive co-co-teaching” approach to a “team co-teaching” approach.
o The special education paraprofessionals who have a good understanding of the curriculum content can be effectively utilized in the co-teaching model.
o Placement of support staff in co-teaching classes should be closely analyzed to maximize services. There were several observations of three teaching staff members working in the same class with a small group of students.
o Some classes will not require a co-teacher. This is based on the ability of the general education teacher to differentiate instruction, provide organizational strategies, and incorporate accommodations.
4. An effective co-teaching model will require clear and explicit understanding of each teacher’s role and responsibilities.
Explanation:
o Special education teachers have many responsibilities to ensure compliance with regulations and procedures. Adequate time should be built into each teacher’s
19 schedule to ensure that there is not a conflict with their co-teaching
responsibilities.
o It is important that support in the classroom is based on the academic needs of the students. In some cases, the general education teacher may not require additional support and is very capable of implementing required accommodations and ensuring access for all students.
o As the co-teaching model evolves, it will improve the utilization of special education staff.
5. The current Academic Support Program needs to be restructured in order to improve the efficacy of special education services and promote student
accountability and independence.
o Academic Support should not be totally utilized as an opportunity for students to do homework and classroom assignments. A majority of the time spent in
Academic Support should be dedicated to teaching test taking strategies, methods of organization, and study skills. It is also a good opportunity for the teacher to assist students who are having difficulty by pre-teaching and post-teaching in specific content areas. As the current academic support program evolves it will be important to find a balance to support students. Time will need to be set aside to assist students with projects and homework. A major concern is that some students will not be able to complete assignments at home
o The Academic Support Program needs to develop a vision and mission statement. An essential part of the mission should focus on student accountability and the development of learning strategies that move students toward academic
independence as they transition through different levels. Once this document is developed, it should be presented to the administration, general education staff, parents, and students.
o To begin the reorganization process for academic support, time should be allotted to allow designated staff an opportunity to develop a Curriculum Map (see
example in Appendix 1). The map would provide guidance and structure for teachers to use in focusing on essential skills and content on a monthly basis. VII. Summary
The Director of Student Services requested that Walker Partnerships conduct an extensive on-site review of the district’s special education programs. The review took place at all of the Hull Public Schools. The purpose of the review was to assist the administration and the school district in determining the effectiveness of current
20 programs. The review process identified several needs to be considered, and has offered recommendations for strategies to improve programs.
Through this review of documentation, onsite visits, and one-on-one interviews, data was collected to formulate the Findings and Recommendations for this report.
These Findings and Recommendations have been presented and supported with explanations to assist the administration and school-based personnel in formulating an action plan(s) that will lead to more effective programming for special needs students.
